A Rice Restart - Run for Your Lives

The poor Palestinians are about the be subjected to another "restarted" peace effort from Condoleeza Rice, our midwife from Hell. But NPR would have us believe that Rice is out to seek peace in Palestine. Here's how Liane Hansen opens the story this morning:

"Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is in the Middle East again to try to restart long stalled Israeli Palestinian peace talks. Her visit is being overshadowed by battles over a new Palestinian unity government and whether it will meet international conditions for recognition."

This opening deserves scrutiny. Its premise is that Rice wants to bring a just peace to the Israel-Palestine issue even though there is no factual evidence to support such a position - and in fact there is strong evidence to support the contrary. Also note how the movement toward accommodation by the Palestinian government (a pledge to respect previous agreements and the implicit recognition of Israel this indicates) is seen as "overshadowing" her efforts.

Of course NPR trots out again and again the demands of the Quartet. But these demands bear a closer look: "A two-State solution to the conflict requires all participants in the democratic process to renounce violence and terror, accept Israel's right to exist, and disarm, as outlined in the Road Map." It is interesting that NPR never includes Israel as one of the "participants" required to renounce violence and terror - that might be, how can one say it, "awkward."

The Right To Exist

There was a fascinating commentary by John Whitbeck published about 2 weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor regarding the issue of the Quartet's demand that the Palestinians "accept Israel's right to exist." It is interesting to read the commentary and then listen to Eric Westervelt's report yesterday on ATC.

Westervelt's report is not the worst, in fact the drift of the report is that there really needs to be some movement by the EU and the United States to lift some sanctions on the Palestinians if there is any hope for "progress." But the report, as usual, treats the demands of the Quartet - and the collective punishment of US/EU sanctions - as the reasonable starting point for discussion of the current conflict in Palestine. Furthermore, Westervelt also uses the term "recognize Israel" versus the actual demand of "accept...right to exist" which as Whitbeck's commentary points out is a significant confusion.

Sadly, what is not touched on at all, is the way in which the current Quartet position of demanding complete submission and capitulation on the part of the Palestinians reveals the Bush administration's lack of interest in a real peace settlement in Palestine. So it is that Westervelt can say - without irony - of Secretary of State Rice's upcoming trip to Jerusalem, "Rice hopes to foster new dialogue on final status peace issues." I hope he's right, and I hope I'm surprised.

Mocking Native Americans

I live in Champaign-Urbana. Home of the University of Illinois. Today the University took the pathetic, small step of announcing the end to public performances at athletic halftime events of a white boy dressed up as an Indian doing clownish pretend Indian dance. NPR was all over this one (They have a thing about Indian mascots--see previous post).

Instead of covering the long struggle against this mock-Indian vaudeville halftime show, NPR decided to interview one of the former white guys who was dressed up as the mascot, "chief illiniwek." That's the only person they spoke to! And then they ended the story with the equally offensive Illinois marching band let's-play-Indian song.

It's sad that they didn't see fit to call up the brave Charlene Teters, one of the first organizers against the University mascot. They also might have taken a look at the American Indian Movement website against mascots. I'd recommend that Michelle Norris and the producers of the show take a look at the Tolerance.org site on Native American mascots.

Lastly, if you can stand it and want to see what the mascot looks like this is a site of photos.

The Umpteenth Time

Haven't we heard this before?

Look how much disinformation NPR packs into its top-of-the-hour news bulletin on Morning Edition today. Nora Raum tells us, "Gates says Iranian paramilitaries are supplying Shiite insurgents in Iraq with weapons, including advanced roadside bombs. But the secretary couldn’t say whether the Iranian government was directly complicit. "

Then Guy Raz fleshes it out, "Gates acknowledged that the American public has shown skepticism over the latest batch of allegations linking Iran to terror groups in Iraq, but he also insisted the evidence is strong." After a brief quote from Gates, Raz continues, "Military intelligence officials accuse the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps of providing weapons to anti-US militias in Iraq. Asked whether the accusation is a sign of things to come, an exhausted Gates said, [voice of Gates] 'For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. We are not planning a war with Iran.' "

Raz then ends the report without mentioning that what Gates said is a well documented lie. Various reports (this for example) have established that the US has been planning a war with Iran. Even the sickening, oft-stated "all options are on the table" is an admission that planning is occurring.

The story here is the justifiable skepticism of "the American public" [though not of National Public Radio] and the misinformation being spread by the Pentagon and the Bush administration. Sadly, for the umpteenth time, NPR simply serves as a rebroadcaster of these unsubstantiated claims. NPR would do well to take a cue from KSFR of Santa Fe which is refusing to serve as a disseminator of information based on "unnamed US officials."

(BTW, the graphic is a shot from the movie Groundhog Day with Bill Murray)

Open Thread - Friday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Open Thread - Thursday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Beat That Horse!

I don't know how they did it, but NPR managed to put Barbaro back in the news AGAIN! (see earlier post about Barbaro). I give up, I'll tell you anything NPR, just please don't cover Barbaro again--please...

If you were subjected to this story, you know you are invited to send in NPR two names for Barbaro's brothers. I decided to take them up on the offer and sent them the following names and little note:

• Red Herring
• Opiate News

"How about not wasting any more news time on this stupid horse!"

Another Deception - No Reaction

A week ago NPR reported on the crash of a US transport helicopter that sadly killed all seven people on board. Introducing the story on February 7th, Michele Norris - noting that insurgents claimed to have downed the helicopter - said, "...but the Pentagon says early indications suggest it had mechanical problems." This was followed by Tom Bowman giving a fair bit of air time to the Pentagon assertions about the crash, including the following statements:

• "...they say all indications at this point point to some sort of mechanical trouble..."
• "...initial indications appear to be mechanical failure."

When I heard this I thought it a little strange, and so a day or so later went searching for the video of the alleged attack to see if it was available. It was easy to find on YouTube; it's here if you want to see it. In the photo on this post, you can see the smoke trail of the missile on its way to the helicopter. In the video, an explosion of the helicopter follows shortly and then flames and the crash.

This morning, NPR notes that the Pentagon has reversed itself. Renee Montagne, in the briefest of reports states, "And the US military now says a helicopter that went down last week outside Baghdad was shot down. That crash at first had been blamed on mechanical failure." Actually it was at first blamed on hostile fire (by insurgents) and then later claimed to be mechanical failure by the Pentagon.

So what gives? And why doesn't NPR comment on the obvious - the Pentagon was lying. Any dope looking at the video can see that it wasn't mechanical failure. This kind of unreliable Pentagon information is especially important now when NPR is frequently rebroadcasting and discussing Pentagon "intelligence" on Iran as if it were reliable and credible.

Washing the Brain

I've been busy shoveling snow today and so the lateness of this post - but I just have to comment on the coverage of North Korea this morning by Anthony Kuhn and Steve Inskeep. Here are a few of the comments these two made during this lopsided story:

• Kuhn: "...and you know there’s the question of whether North Korea really wants to disarm, there’s a question of what North Korea’s general strategy is, and that’s where a lot of skepticism is coming from right now."
• Inskeep: "Does he [US negotiator Christopher Hill] think that he has an agreement that can be verified and that North Korea can be assured of actually following because of course they, they violated the last one."
• Kuhn responds: "Yes, well that’s a very serious question, and that is something that there’s a lot of skepticism about, for example Japan’s foreign minister…has already questioned whether…it can actually be implemented…many Chinese analysts are skeptical about North Korea’s real intentions…and also the former US ambassador…John Bolton said…this was a bad deal…could set an example for Iran..."

Astounding how confident these two are in their misinformation. Inskeep states "because of course they violated the last one." Did they? On what does Inskeep base this statement? Selig Harrison in Foreign Affairs notes that in fact the alleged 2002 violation may have been another deception of the frequently dishonest Bush administration. And even if the North violated some terms of the agreement, Bruce Cummings points out that in the context of Bush aggression the violation was virtually guaranteed. If Inskeep was referring to the most recent accord of 2005, even Newsweek (!) notes that the US went out of its way to provoke North Korea.

All of Kuhn's comments and remarks are based on the assumption that North Korea is completely untrustworthy (and the US is the honest broker). But take a read of this piece from The Nation and notice how it is the US that nuclearized the Korean peninsula in the first place.

Last October Diane Sawyer scored an exclusive trip to North Korea, and was clearly stunned at how brainwashed the North Korean citizens she met were. One can sympathize with the ideological rigidity of the North Koreans - after all they live under a totalitarian repressive dictatorship, but what can explain the ideological rigidity of the people like Inskeep and Kuhn who seem proud of their ignorance, their unquestioning acceptance of US government propaganda on this issue, and their own refusal to critique the wacko policies of our own "Dear Leader"?

Open Thread - Tuesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

"...disclosed satellite photographs, intercepted Iraqi military communications, and the accounts of Iraqi sources and defectors...they all add up to a picture of a country that has evaded arms inspections, developed weapons of mass destruction, and aided terrorists, including al-Qaeda..."

- Robert Siegel parroting Sec. Powell's speech to the UN on February 5, 2003.

If you can bear going back four tragic years, it's worth listening to this worthless "analysis" of Powell's convincing con that got us in to Iraq. You'll hear Siegel and his two guests say such things as "a very compelling, irrefutable case," "a very good case," and "you can never find…eighteen needles in an enormous haystack, eighteen trucks [the supposed mobile weapons labs] perhaps that might be on the highways of Iraq."

You'd think that reporters like Siegel would feel some remorse for helping pass along the lies that led to the horrors of Iraq - and now would be aggressively challenging the current junk intelligence that's laying the groundwork for war in Iran. But sadly this current sell is like a bad re-run. Here he is tonight talking to Guy Raz: "...military intelligence experts presented their case to reporters in Baghdad, and today at the Pentagon officials continued to push the accusation."

Raz responds, "...first of all it’s not a new accusation….the Pentagon has been implicating Iran in a whole host of attacks on US forces in Iraq, but what makes this accusation different is that it’s more specific…these E.F.P.s…bombs that they say are being made in Iran and being sent over the Iran-Iraq border, that it’s a deliberate Iranian program, the government in Iran is behind it they say at the highest levels in Iran."

A little further into the interview Siegel asks, "...what kind of evidence does the military cite...?" To which Raz (echoing the February 2003 report) says, "Well some of it is indeed compelling…and some of it is circumstantial…the compelling evidence is that the military has shown mortar rounds that have serial numbers on them…are Iranian serial numbers…they have to be made in Iran..."

Does either of these men have a memory, a brain, a conscience?

Holy Smokes!

I braced myself for this morning's talk between Steve Inskeep and Jamie Tarbay about the supposed intelligence of Iranian arms going to insurgents. But I was pleasantly surprised! Yes, Inskeep actually asked a few of the questions that should lead ALL NPR's reports on this con job coming out of the Pentagon. Here are a few of his questions:

• "Jamie, I want to try and figure this out. What’s being said is Iran is supporting Shiia Muslim groups and militias, but haven’t Sunni Muslim groups been the ones most likely to kill American soldiers?"
• "...did any reporters at this session ask why we should believe what US intelligence agencies say given their previous mistakes when it comes to intelligence on Iraq?"
• "The thing is they talked about this at a Pentagon briefing in September and so I’m trying to figure out why five months later it’s new?"

Granted my expectations are low, but it was refreshing to not hear NPR simply repeating the Pentagon assertions without question.

Unfortunately, this evening's ATC would show that this half-step forward would be met yet another three steps back.

Quack! Quack! Quack!

More junk from the Pentagon about Iran being the problem in Iraq and the media is snapping it up - unreal. Don't waste your time listening to the gullible nonsense on NPR this morning, and yesterday and the day before.... Instead take a look at Juan Cole's piece this morning. Or if you are interested in seeing how little interest the Bushists have in dismantling al-Qaeda in the interests of pursuing their Iranian war dreams take a look at Helena Cobban's thoughtful article.

Incweasingly Stwong Evidence

The "Noise Machine" is still going strong and the target is Iran. This morning in the story on the Casey to Petraeus handoff in Iraq NPR dutifully rebroadcasts accusations against Iran:

Scott Simon asks Jamie Tarabay, "This handover is coming at a time when US Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that there’s increasingly strong evidence to his mind of Iranian involvement in Iraq, what can you tell us about these reports about manufac—, explosive devices manufactured in Iran?"

To which Tarabay replies, "Well when he spoke to reporters, Secretary Gates said that there were markings on these explosives that were pretty good evidence, were the words that he used, that Iranians were supplying either the weaponry or the technology to insurgents in Iraq. He says there might be serial numbers on the fragments of these explosives but he didn’t say how those numbers could be traced back to Iran..." Then after noting that the US has repeatedly "put off" presenting any evidence she says "what we know is that General Casey recently said that five men arrested in the north of Iraq were connected to the Iranian revolutionary guard and they were in Iraq as intelligence operatives...."

Beyond the mention of the postponed briefings, there is no attempt to debunk this nonsense; no sense of embarrassment at once again repeating groundless claims of "evidence." How many times does Elmer Fudd NPR have to be set up with lies before it starts expressing some serious skepticism? Even better would be investigative reporting into the absurdity of these accusations. The story these reporters should be broadcasting is not the BS they get from the secretaries and generals, but the likely motivations and machinations behind these deceptions. Wouldn't it be great to see the unmasking of this junk intelligence done now instead of waiting for some tepid inspector general's report to come out four years and hundreds of thousands of lives too late?

That Liberation Thing

I kind of expect someone like General Casey to call the invasion of Iraq a "liberation." What's he going to say, "It was a great power grab for control of the Middle East, but it just wasn't quite the cakewalk my Commander and his chums expected"?

But I expect a bit more from a reporter talking about General Casey's remarks. Jamie Tarabay says, "his biggest fear was that the Iraqis wouldn’t be able to put the past behind them. He said, you know, we were able, we liberated the Iraqis from tyranny, but we cannot liberate them from their prejudices. And just to demonstrate that point, not long after the ceremony ended there was a suicide bombing in central Baghdad and at least four people were killed..."

See, it's so simple: US = liberators = good. Iraqis = violent + prejudiced = bad. Car bomb = proof. End of discussion.

Open Thread - Weekend

NPR related comments welcomed.

Like Robin Hood in Reverse

A couple of readers have commented about the story on income inequality that ran on Thursday's ATC. The story is part of a series that NPR is running to supposedly examine income inequality in the United States - especially the accelerating divide between the haves and have-nots in the United States. I was headed to the gym listening to the report - which noted that even The Decider admits that the widening income divide is a problem - when Adam Davidson about made me fall off of my bike. He reminded us that we should consider University of Chicago's Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who thinks income inequality is a good thing. Becker tells us, "I think inequality in earnings has been mainly the good kind. I strongly believe it's been mainly the good kind."

At the time I thought, "Good God, NPR must have spent a long time looking for someone who would argue that the demise of the middle class is a good thing." I mean, even the World Bank has some harsh words for such inequalities:

• High inequality reduces the pool of people with access to the resources—such as land or education--needed to unleash their full productive potential. Thus a country deprives itself of the contributions the poor could make to its economic and social development.
• High inequality threatens a country’s political stability because more people are dissatisfied with their economic status, which makes it harder to reach political consensus among population groups with higher and lower incomes. Political instability increases the risks of investing in a country and so significantly undermines its development potential.
• High inequality may discourage certain basic norms of behavior among economic agents (individuals or enterprises) such as trust and commitment. Higher business risks and higher costs of contract enforcement impede economic growth by slowing down all economic transactions.

But now I feel sort of silly. I realize that Becker must actually be like one of the Yes Men. He was just pretending to be like a cold-blooded villain out of a Dickens' novel when he said that education is at the heart of the income gap and "that's mostly because the better off have more education. And he says that gap is creating the right incentives." By pretending to be such a crass defender of privilege and exclusion he was really making the case for free universal higher education for everyone--pretty clever! And when he writes that Latin America owes the Pinochet-loving "Chicago Boys" a debt of gratitude he's just making a point that no one in their right mind could sing the praises of serving a fascist government. I get it...

Good job NPR. Thanks for the laugh!

Open Thread - Friday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Lethally Lazy

Sometimes NPR news is surreally strange. Today Morning Edition had the briefest little bit about Sec. Rice being asked by a House committee about a missed opportunity for the US to diplomatically engage with an Iranian peace proposal back in 2003. I've been complaining for awhile (11/16/06, 9/8/06, and 8/26/06) about the utter lack of coverage that NPR has given to this "missed chance to talk to Iran" as Steve Inskeep put it. It was far more than that, it was an opportunity to address and settle the issues of security in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine - along with the nuclear threat to the Middle East -- in other words it was HUGE.

Here's the text of the report as read by Inskeep:

"A House committee asked Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice if the US missed a chance to talk with Iran. Rice seemed to tell NPR last year that she knew of an Iranian proposal from 2003, 'What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one on one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran.' The fax from Iran listed a series of objectives for talks including possible recognition of Israel. Rice denied seeing it. Other US officials have said they do remember that Iranian proposal from 2003."

This deserves a little scrutiny. First, as I've mentioned above, "missed chance to talk" hardly conveys the significance of the Iranian offer and the subsequent US refusal to even consider it. Second, when Inskeep said Rice "seemed to tell NPR" about this I found myself scratching my head--I sure didn't remember such a thing. So I listened to the June 2, 2006 NPR report this Rice quote came from, and it has nothing to do with the 2003 proposal. It is only about Iran wanting to deal one-on-one with the US regarding the nuclear issue (as opposed to the multi-national confrontation Iran was facing at that time).

As far as the fax in question, this morning's report makes it's existence seem like a vague "he said, she said" case. In fact if you look at this Washington Post article you'll see that it is very real and that Sec. Rice is a flat out liar (as if that's a surprise). Finally NPR's report thoroughly minimizes the importance of the Iranian offer; it was far more than a "series of objectives" and "possible recognition of Israel." This article from the American Prospect conveys the scope of the proposal and the tragedy of the US rebuff. The implications of such a policy are that the US and Israeli governments at that time had no desire for a real peace settlement - and in fact wanted to purse policies of military confrontation and domination. (This was in May 2003, just after the quick "victory" over the Iraqi army and the toppling of Saddam Hussein after all.)

Of course by pretending that NPR news had covered this story in the past (and producing the misleading soundbite to prove it), NPR is attempting to let itself off the hook for it's biased, lazy, and virtually nonexistent coverage of this important chapter of US foreign policy.

(The image came from the following site.)

Open Thread - Thursday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Of Blackwater and Blackshirts

Tonight, NPR's Brian Naylor covered the testimony - to a House oversight committee - by relatives of four American Blackwater mercenaries who were killed and had their corpses gruesomely desecrated in Fallujah, Iraq back in March of 2004. (Interestingly NPR focused on minimizing and justifying the use of corpse-desecration by the US military in October 2005 in Afghanistan.)

The emphasis of Naylor's report is on the charges made by the relatives: that negligence and profiteering by Blackwater Corporation, and a lack of government oversight over the company, led to the deaths of their loved ones. This is worthwhile, but in some ways is old news that NPR should have been covering earlier; it also is not the most crucial story about Blackwater. The story that NPR news has yet to cover is the insidious nature of the Blackwater enterprise and it's founder, Erik Prince, and how Blackwater is just one element in the rise of a network of reactionary paramilitaries which Chris Hedges convincingly suggests could emerge as a sort of "praetorian guard" for the extremist Christian right. Coupled with the neo-Nazi infiltration of the US military itself, this threat should be getting far more coverage than it is.

I have a modest suggestion for NPR. Given that Blackwater is based in North Carolina, given that the CIA "special rendition" torture flights have a North Carolina connection, and given that North Carolina seems to be a hub for the growing paramilitary empire - NPR should send a reporter or two to North Carolina to check out this phenomenon. I'd recommend Anne Garrels, who might use her husband's CIA connections and his work with Air America to flesh out the whole nature of covert air operations. North Carolina is not all that far from Washington, DC and so expenses could be kept to a minimum. It's just an idea...and it's just a story that has profound implications for the very survival of our democratic institutions and freedoms.

*Blackshirts were the paramilitaries in fascist Italy.

Open Thread - Wednesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Taking Care of Business (as Usual)

If I were paranoid, I'd think NPR wonks sometimes sat around a conference table brainstorming on ways to try and demoralize progressives and people of conscience. This morning we get to hear about rock stars selling their songs and image for commercials. Okay, if someone who wrote songs back in the day has fallen on hard times and feels they need to make some money by selling their work, who am I to condemn it? I know I've compromised my values at times, but for God's sake, I don't then extol my compromises as acts of virtue and try to put down those who have more integrity - but that's exactly what this report does.

Consider what Joel Rose of WHYY has to say:

"With Bob Dylan…in a commercial for Victoria’s Secret and the Beatles’ song…in a new ad for Target, the major remaining holdouts are Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen and Tom Waits. But that stance is getting harder and harder to find says Billboard's Brian Garrity: ‘Even though you have some bands that are still kind of clinging to this notion being in commercials is some kind of sellout, the industry by and large has moved past that stigma.’ "

"Clinging to this notion"! That smug little put-down really ticks me off - as if consumerism and commercialism are value neutral, instead of the soul-shriveling, planet destroying ventures that they often are. I don't have a problem with NPR reporting on the phenomena of rock stars selling to advertisers, but wouldn't it have been interesting to hear from those "remaining holdouts"? Isn't it fascinating that Springsteen and Young also have publicly opposed the Iraq war - along with other rockers. A news program might cover that, might even interview the musicians to find out what informs their values, and what challenges they face in such a market driven profession. I don't think I'll be hearing that one on NPR news any time soon.

BTW: I do love the music of Johnny Cash!

Open Thread - Tuesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Entertainment Tonight This Morning

Can you spot the rock star?

Poor Martin Kaste must have so overloaded on the Prince Superbowl halftime show that it clouded his thinking this morning - or perhaps he secretly wants to work as a reporter for E! or Entertainment Tonight. Here's how Kaste presents the court martial case of U.S. Army 1st Lieutenant Ehren K. Watada, the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to the Iraq War and occupation:
"Last year when the order to deploy to Iraq came down, he refused to go. This has given him rock star status among war protesters....he politely accepts the crowds adoration." Kaste describes Watada as being "in some ways...a hero straight out of central casting...besides being bright and well spoken, he dresses and looks like the cover of GQ, but there are those who are not so taken with him..."

Guess what Kaste? some people actually give a crap about the direction this country is going and sincerely admire the courage of someone like Lt. Watada. We don't care whether he dresses well or looks like he's "straight out of central casting." I realize that some people are so devoid of integrity and core values that they assume that others must be motivated by the same vapid, superficial qualities that inspire them. Watada is not a "rock star" to those who oppose the Iraq War, he is a man who has put his life and career on the line to stand up for what he believes. Perhaps this is what has earned him the respect of another "rock star," Desmond Tutu.

In fact, Watada's case raises crucial issues that cut right to the heart of whether our nation will survive as a democratic republic or will continue its decent into a militarism where laws, rights, and principles are regularly disregarded in the name of "security."

NPR could do us all a favor and assign the coverage of this story to someone who would give it the serious consideration it deserves - perhaps Nina Totenberg, who's been doing a decent job covering the Libby trial, could recommend someone.

Non-Lethal Weapons are So Funny

"He was in his underwear, that was the experimental protocol. In fact, the first guy up was going to wear a leopard skin pair." (loud chuckle)

So begins NPR's story on the military's non-lethal "heat ray" weapon. David Kestenbaum continues, "The military now has a series of videos: typically a grown man stands calmly in a field, then for no apparent reason, he jumps like he’s been goosed. You can hear the guy holding the video camera chuckle." Golly, hurting people is so funny!

Kestenbaum also informs us that "the military put together another video demonstrating a hypothetical scenario. (sounds of a mob) Some guards are stationed at the entrance to a facility and an angry crowd approaches the barbed wire fence. Are they carrying explosives? Maybe they’re just unhappy citizens? The guards don’t want to have to shoot."

Well that's one scenario, but here's a few other possibilities: "Citizens, already angry at having their country occupied, approach the gates of Abu Ghraib to look for seized relatives are ordered to disperse. When they don't...'" or (closer to home) "Some guards are stationed by the 'free speech' pen outside the Democratic Party Convention and a few rebellious citizens ignore warnings to stay put and decide to walk down the street with their signs -- zap, zap, chuckle, chuckle."

NPR's use of humor and levity (and amnesia) in covering another non-lethal tool of pain in the hands of US authorities really ticks me off given the context of human rights abuses that have been committed - both currently and in the past and at home and abroad - with non-lethal weapons (dogs, tear gas, tasers, pepper spray, etc). For a serious and complicated discussion of this same topic take a look at the report on Democracy Now!

Of Pawns and Corn

Today Juan Forero is back talking about Chavez and Lourdes Garcia-Navarro discussing Felipe Calderon. The reporting is thin on substance and heavy on opinion. Forero says, that Chavez, "painted the opposition as pawns of the evil Bush administration and that has worked." It'd be great if we actually got some factual investigation into the the Bush/US backing of the coup and they way in which the opposition was used as pawns by the National Endowment for Democracy. Just so listeners don't miss the point, Debbie Elliott says, "Chavez has been trying to position himself as the heir to Fidel Castro..."

On to Mexico, Garcia-Navarro - talking to people complaining about tortilla prices - says, "They were all blaming the government; it's the easiest target. And the left which lost the presidential elections has been using this issue to great advantage...they say this wouldn't have happened if Mexico wasn't importing about a quarter of its corn from the United States. They blame...NAFTA for destroying the Mexican countryside. Under NAFTA, it has to be said, Mexico shed about 30% of its farm jobs." Navarro could have given these complaints even more context by noting that it's not just Mexican leftists who hold such opinions - much of the world (see these IRC, NYT, or CSM articles), including the respected organization Oxfam, have noted the ruin that Calderon type policies have brought to rural Mexico.

NPR does a great service to multinational corporations and US neoliberal foreign policy by presenting the critiques of such policy as nothing more than leftist complaint and opinion, instead of the reasonable, reality-based opposition to policies that are making a few very rich and many very poor.

Horsing Around

Did you know that Barbaro got laminitis in his left hind leg while his right leg was healing? Did you know that he recently had two pins inserted into his cannon bone and wore a brace-like structure? Did you know that Barbaro's initial medical treatment involved surgery, titanium plates, and over two dozen screws? If you don't you obviously have not been paying attention to NPR news in the last week. Just for the record here's how the coverage of Barbaro the dead race horse has broken down recently:

• ATC, 1/28/07 (2 minutes, 53 seconds).
• ME, 1/29/07 (3 minutes, 21 seconds).
• ATC, 1/29/07 (4 minutes, 31 seconds).
• ME, 1/30/07 (2 minutes, 17 seconds).
• ME, 1/30/07 (2 minutes, 43 seconds).

Over the course of three short days, that's 15 minutes and 45 seconds of news time devoted to a now dead race horse that has no meaningful effect on the lives of anyone on the planet.

But that wasn't enough for NPR and Scott Simon. This morning - for another 3 minutes and 9 tawdry seconds - Simon reveals that "when Barbaro broke down shortly after the start of last year's Preakness…I burst into tears." He continues his eulogy to the horse: "Barbaro touched something in millions of people…the will he displayed…Barbaro was an athlete, a champion, a performer. Champions carry the hopes of others....greatness died with him....God speed Barbaro."

For a bit of contrast, consider NPR's coverage of Khaled El-Masri, an innocent German kidnapped by the CIA, shipped off to Afghanistan, brutally tortured, and dumped back in Albania. On January 31, 2007 the German government issued arrest warrants for the CIA operatives responsible, and for this case that highlights the barbarism of our government agents NPR gives one 3 minute, 11 second report, and unlike the minutiae of Barbaro's surgery and demise all you'll hear on this report is "those named on the arrest warrant are charged with kidnapping and causing grievous bodily harm to Khalid El-Masri....He was picked up in Macedonia in late December 2003, taken to prison in Afghanistan, held there for nearly five months, then dropped off in Albania to find his way home...." That's it.

If you think it's unfair just focusing on the past week, feel free to look back at all NPR news' coverage of El-Masri's case. The most detail you will find is El-Masri speaking through his translator on November 28, 2006, "I was humiliated; I was beaten; I was drugged. And I was taken to Afghanistan against my will, and there they made it clear right from the onset, they said you are in a country where there is no rule of law.’ A month before that, ME aired a report lamenting how these foreign arrest warrants underscore "the legal threat faced by CIA officers overseas." Contrast NPR's scant coverage with the substance of this report from the Guardian.

Iranian Tentacles

Listening to NPR of late I wouldn't be surprised if they told us that the Iranians were behind the deadly tornadoes that hit Florida on Friday. The saturation of the Iranian boogeyman on NPR is really astounding - and sadly reminiscent of the 2002-03 run-up to the Iraq invasion.

I mistakenly thought that Friday evening's piece on Arab heroes of the Holocaust might actually be a thought provoking, interesting piece...alas it turned out to be yet another bash Iran story. If I had known who Robert Satloff - the man being interviewed - was, I wouldn't have been surprised. Robert Satloff is an "expert" from the AIPAC founded, pro-Zionist Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). This is a man who has written, in all seriousness, "[Ariel] Sharon has already accomplished more than enough to earn a place among Israel's giants."

The heart of the interview came after Siegel asked Satloff to compare his State Department speaking tour with Iran's recent Holocaust Denial conference. Satloff responded:

"Yes, I think that there is a fundamental connection here. Sunni Arab leaders, Sunni Arab intelligentsia are apoplectic about the rise of Iranian, and more generally Shiite influence that they see throughout the Middle East. They fear that the Iranians have their tentacles out and that they are spreading their influence, and they fear the United States is receding and they are begging the United States, 'Help the Sunni Arabs combat the spread of Shiia radicalism'..."

Now by itself this would be bad enough, but consider the NPR context in which this report is aired: earlier in the day on Morning Edition Mary Louise Kelly, reporting on the grim National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) for Iraq, states, "...and it also talks a little bit about the role that Iran is playing. It says that Iran is making the situation worse, what we don’t know is quite how much detail the estimate provides on the role that Iran is playing..."

Then in another report on Morning Edition, Iran is blamed for the armed violence between Fatah and Hamas in the Occupied Territories. Renee Montagne says to Linda Gradstein, "And Linda, in the middle of all this, Fatah is saying that they've arrested seven Iranian weapons experts working for the ruling Hamas party. They arrested them, they say, in Gaza. Tell us that story."

Gradstein dutifully responds, "Yes, Fatah officials say that they raided the Islamic University, which is a Hamas stronghold, late last night, and that they found eight Iranian weapons experts and that one of the men committed suicide rather than be captured. Israel radio, also quoting Fatah, said at least some of the men were chemical experts."

I wonder if these chemical experts drove into Gaza in those amazing Winnebagos of Death that went missing in Iraq?

Open Thread - Weekend

NPR related comments welcomed.

From the War is Peace Department

"Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice hosted a meeting of would-be Middle East peacemakers in Washington today..."

So begins this evening's ATC report on a meeting of representatives of the 'Quartet' (Russia, US, UN, and EU). Condoleeza Rice, the US - peacemakers? That hurts.

Is it really so hard to come up with a more neutral lead-in for such a report, perhaps, "Sec. of State Rice convened a meeting of the Quartet which came up with it's so-called "roadmap to peace" back in April of 2003?" An even more truthful introduction would mention that it is a plan that had little chance of success since it ignored the historical injustices of Israel against Palestinians, and was undermined by Israeli aggression almost from the start.

Open Thread - Friday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Greasing the Skids

In Oliver Sacks book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat there is the compelling story of a man who has no short term memory. The author describes walking into the man's room, receiving a polite and cordial "Hello", "How are you?", "Who are you?" etc. - then leaving the room, only to return and be greeted as a complete stranger yet again.

I kept thinking of this poor soul as I listened to this morning's interview that Steve Inskeep performs with Nicholas Burns of the State Department. Given the track record of the US government in lying (e.g. WMDs, torture of detainees, progress in Iraq, secret prisons, etc.) and especially the propaganda used to launch the Iraq War Product, you might expect Inskeep to challenge Nicholas Burns' allegations against Iran. Au contraire! Inskeep actually takes the lead in delivering misinformation: "Now lets look at the effort to stop what the US regards as interference inside Iraq. According to a top State Department official, the interference comes from nearby Iran." A rationale individual might wonder how you can have an "effort to stop" something that doesn't even exist!

As the interview proceeds Burns says, "There's been increased evidence…that Iran has given this kind of assistance [sophisticated explosive technology] to the Shia insurgency groups." The obvious follow-up is, "So Mr. Burns, where is the evidence?"

Instead Inskeep's next question tries to tie Iran to the ambush and death of 5 US soldiers in Karbala a few days ago, "There's been much interest in a particular incident in recent days near the city of Karbala, where a number of insurgents in U.S. military uniforms, or what looked like them anyway, got past a number of checkpoints and were involved in a gunfight in which a number of Americans were killed. Do you believe Iran had a role in that specific incident?" Burns answers this with a noncommittal statement of outrage at the act, but Inskeep keeps pushing, "Are you looking at Iran?"

Given that the neocons are probably maneuvering for a war with Iran, this kind of sympathetic interview is unacceptable. Whatever Inskeep's perverse desire for war with Iran is, NPR owes it to its listeners to question and challenge those in power to put up the evidence or shut up.

Open Thread - Thursday

NPR related comments welcomed.

The White (Wo)Man's Burden

Interviewing is just not NPR's strong suit. Regarding Iraq Renee Montagne this morning let Nancy Pelosi get away with this statement: "The United States overthrew their dictator, gave them elections. Now it is their turn to take responsibility for their security and safety of their people, and the reconstruction of their country."

That is a doozy! It deserves a little unpacking: Overthrew their dictator? No, overthrew OUR dictator, and that only after dismantling THEIR country 16 years ago (...that is so 2oth century), and choking it slowly for another ten. Oh and let's not forget an illegal and lethal invasion and occupation started just four short years ago. Oh, and a corrupt occupation authority. Oh and....you get the picture.

What is Renee Montagne's follow up to this distortion of the past? She asks Pelosi, "Did you learn from the Prime Minister precisely what the benchmarks are that are being discussed?" Unlike interviews, non sequiturs are definitely NPR's strong suit.

This is not just nit-picking. Allowing this statement to go unchallenged is immoral and dangerous. It not only covers-up the gross violence of US foreign policy, but actually glosses it with a veneer of the "noble cause." Also it shifts all the blame onto the Green Zone Government of Iraq. And finally, it justifies the Bush invasion of Iraq, only finding problems with the timing of it and the execution of the occupation, not the entire project.

Open Thread - Wednesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

My Prayers Answered

Okay, I promise; this will be my parting shot on the Juan Williams' interview with Bush.

Unlike "Thanks Buddy, glad your here," Williams, I wasn't praying for the President during the interview; I was praying for even one intelligent, challenging follow-up question to the BS Bush responses that Williams dutifully lapped up during his talk with the Decider yesterday. And I have to credit NPR for answering my prayers tonight.

Remember during the interview when Williams mentions that NPR has a reporter with the Minnesota National Guard and tells Bush that one of the soldiers has a question? Williams reads Bush the question from Specialist Ryan Schmidt, "What if your plan for a troop surge to Baghdad does not work?"

Now that is a question! It really cuts to the chase doesn't it? The implied subtext is so perfectly disguised yet obvious: "Given that all your other 'plans for victory' have been disasters, what's the plan going to be when this one goes down the tubes too?"

And Bush's answer? Drum roll please: "Well I would say to Ryan, uhh, I put it in place, uh, with, on the advice of a lot of smart people, particularly the military people who thinks it will work, and, uh, let us go into the, into this aspect of the uh, of the, uh, Iraqi strategy, feeling it will work. But I will also assure Ryan that we are constantly adjusting to conditions on the ground."

I swear to God that's what he said. And how does razor sharp 'Buddy' Williams' respond? He says, "Let's talk about Iran for a second, Mr. President." Let's talk about Iran? Iran? Read it and weep.

But then tonight John McChesney, embedded with Schmidt's Guard Unit, says, "We asked Specialist Schmidt if he was satisfied with the President’s answer." And then NPR (bless them) airs this soldier's response:

"No it did not answer my question. I would have liked to know more so that there will be a plan if this does not work For some of us that are over here, particularly me, my unit, we all feel that why, what’s the point of us being extended if your initial plan to send more troops over here DOES NOT WORK. What are you going to do Mr. President?"

Actually two prayers were answered. An intelligent question and follow-up AND a replacement for the worthless Juan Williams (and Inskeep, and Montagne, and Liasson, and Block, and Siegel, and....)

Amen.

The Interview and the F-Word

If you (to quote Cheney) have a "strong stomach" and can listen to the whole of the interview between Juan Williams and the Decider you can't help but wonder, "What about the F-word?"

Which F-word?

You might think FOOL (as in Juan Williams) : "People are praying for you, want to be with you, Mr. President....So I wonder if you could give us something to go on, give us something – say, you know, this is a reason to get behind the president right now."

Or perhaps FALSEHOODS (from Bush): "We all thought that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and 'we all' being not only the administration, but members from both political parties in the Congress....there was a universal belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction...."

But the F-word that came out of Bush's mouth, though not Williams', was FAILURE. Talking about his Iraq "plan," Bush says, "What will happen if there’s failure…chaos…failure would endanger the homeland…enemy likely would follow us here…ills can come home to haunt us...."

Wouldn't it be great if Williams had said, "But Mr. President, with all due respect, the Iraq mission is already a failure. That is clear from the facts on the ground, that was the opinion of the voters in November and is even the opinion of many of your closest allies and other conservatives." Sadly, this obvious fact that the Iraq war IS already a failure (disaster, fiasco, monstrous crime, terrible tragedy, etc...) never escapes William's mouth. Instead he just goes right along with the Bush fantasy of the "half-glass full"[sic] where there has been tremendous progress in Iraq, and where his latest "plan" is the only option for victory(!).

Oh, and the grade that NPR and Williams get for this cozy chat with slouching Bush? What else - F!

Open Thread - Tuesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Wargasm

A reader notes, "Heard a narrative story from a soldier in Iraq this morning -- something I've not heard before. The soldier told a riveting narrative about an attack on his platoon, and the bravery of his fellow soldiers. It was something right out of a GI Joe magazine."

Here are a few tidbits from this NPR warnography featuring Benjamin Tupper, "a military trainer stationed in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army National Guard."

Now we found ourselves in a cross fire ambush....Corporal Polanski was the machine gunner...he was the most powerful weapon we had. Bullets and RPGs were raining down on our forces, but "Ski," as we called him, bravely remained in the gun turret....

"Ski" and I were shocked, then we both grinned happy to be alive. Then Ski was shot in the ear....

A burly major stepped out of the first humvee. "What’s the situation here," he said coolly.
"We’ve been surrounded and taken fire for two hours!" I said.
“Surrounded?” A look of amusement rose on his face, “ I LOVE being surrounded!”

The reasonable reader above also asks, "What do you know about this new kind of piece? Is NPR now going to routinely give Pentagon-approved soldier accounts about combat? Or is it likely a one time deal?" I wish I could say that this was a new kind of piece, but NPR is a frequent purveyor of slop from the Pentagon (see this for a prime example). For a striking contrast take a look at Democracy Now! from a few days ago or from today to hear from the military heroes taking on the empire for the sake of our republic.

Slouching Toward Tehran

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
- from the "Second Coming" by William Butler Yeats

This morning NPR launches its exclusive interview with President Bush. The job of the interview goes to Juan Williams, who chummed with Cheney at the White House Carnival last October.

The piece leads off with a question from Williams to Bush: "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq, how will the US respond?" Good God, what a stupid question! Why not ask, "Given that most, if not all US casualties are being caused by Sunni insurgents backed by US allies such as Saudi Arabia, why are you focusing on Iran?" or "Given that the powerful SCIRI and Dawa members of the Iraqi government are close allies of Iran, what are you possibly hoping to achieve by being more aggressive with Iran?" Or even, "Since the Iraq Study group recommended working with Iran and Syria, why are you discarding all of their advice and opting for confrontation with Iran and Syria?" No, can't be contrary...instead Williams asks a question you might expect to hear from someone on Fox News -oops!

All right, off to a bad start but lets see where this goes. Bush answers, "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people we will respond firmly."

Back in the studio Inskeep then asks Williams a reasonable question: "And Juan do you get the sense that the President is looking for a fight with Iran?" And Williams responds, "No Steve, I had the sense that he’s defensive about this....he kind of shied away from the idea that that necessarily meant an escalation...."

I never thought I'd recommend turning to Bush for counsel in such a matter, but the clueless Williams might just want to consider the words of the Decider from way back in 2002: "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Hey Juan, remember all that BS about WMD's and war as a last resort before March of 2003? Ringing any bells?

Green Zone Nonsense

If you've been in touch with any news over the last day you've seen reports about 300 "militants" being killed by Iraqi and American forces around Najaf in Iraq. It's grimly fascinating to hear how NPR reporters holed-up in the Green Zone try to wedge this confusing story (see Juan Cole's coverage) into a Pentagon approved script of Iraqi forces successfully taking on their first major battle with insurgents with back-up help from Uncle Sam's army. In the headlines at the top of the hour and half past the hour during Morning Edition today, I heard Diana Douglas and Anne Garrels respectively give this narrative. Both made little attempt to clarify what the specific sources were for their reporting. Here is how Douglas' report was worded:

"Iraqi and American forces attacked the hideout of an apocalyptic Muslim militant group near Najaf. They called themselves ‘The soldiers of heaven,’ and were digging trenches and preparing to attack pilgrims that came to Najaf for the Ashura religious holiday. The fighting lasted all day yesterday with American helicopters and tanks offering support to Iraqi soldiers and National Guard…the Iraqi government said they killed 300 of the fighters."

You would think Douglas was either there, or interviewed various eyewitnesses to make such definite assertions. Although the whole story is questionable, only the death toll is attributed to the Iraqi government. If you read Juan Cole's piece linked above you will see how blatantly skewed Douglas' report is and how interesting the real story might well be (Shiite on Shiite violence? The 'militants' being more anti-Iranian than the government attackers? The US taking sides in a purely religious dispute?) It is clear that Douglas either doesn't have a clue about any of the complexities of the situation, or is purposely flattening the narrative into the usual good-guys versus bad-guys, us-against-them story.

Imagine how different the impression would be if the reporters opened by stating: "Listeners should note that often the information we get in the Green Zone - both official and unofficial - has often proved to be exaggerated, unreliable, or fabricated." That would be informative, wouldn't it?

Open Thread - Monday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Timing Is Everything

Yesterday a reader left this comment: "There is something really devious, oppressive, and Orwellian about NPR's ongoing "Crossing the Divide" series of reports(focused on the themes of 'bipartisanship and compromise'). And the timing is, of course, extremely suspect."

Yes, there is something exceedingly perverse about NPR's zeal for "bipartisanship" in the wake of the November 2006 elections. After five years of neocon triumphalism (think of Bush's swaggering "I've got capital" after the 2004 elections) and the accelerated gutting of Constitutional liberties and checks on executive power, the November elections offered a slim hope that the march of far right excesses might finally be checked. Instead of covering events, NPR jumped right in to construct the "issue" of bipartisanship, climaxing in this weeks really bizarre series of "crossing the divide." Here are a few of the lowpoints of this series:

• On Thursday ATC features drug addict hypocrite, homophobe, racist and sexist radio personality Rush Limbaugh noting mainly that he is "conservative" and not interested in bipartisanship.
• On Friday Morning Cokie Roberts puts a shine on the good ole' days when Congress was all male, all white, and "knew what a real enemy was — it was a dictator across the ocean, not a guy across the aisle." Not a peep about McCarthyism. Not a mention of the commitment to white supremacy--which her father, Hale Boggs, supported in 1956.
  
• Friday's ATC featured a piece on the wonderful compromise on slavery! This report lionized Senator Henry Clay known for the Missouri Compromise, crediting him with putting off the Civil War for decades (I wonder if slaves liked that!). It featured historian Robert Remini who says he believes that Clay could have kept the Civil War from occuring--hmmm.
• In a most unbipartisan swipe, NPR brings on the discredited bigot and rightist Dinesh D'Souza, who offers his sloppy thinking on Vietnam and Iraq. Not one word about D'Souza's sleazy history and latest extremist remarks.

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.

Open Thread - Friday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Inskeep Shines

I've been waiting since November for NPR to host Jimmy Carter; today they finally got around to bringing him on for an interview. Steve Inskeep gets the nod for this hatchet job on Carter's latest book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. This interview is remarkable for it's complete unwillingness to address the substance (Israeli oppression of Palestinians and land confiscation) of Carter's book and for the fact that every question Inskeep asks is an attack.

Here's how this slam on Carter's book begins (before the interview even starts):
Renee Montagne: "He’s been accused of getting some facts wrong, of mislabeling maps, and slanting the book against Israel."
Steve Inskeep: "Some supporters of Israel were especially unhappy with the title, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. Some members of an advisory board at his Carter Center resigned."

And here are the questions Inskeep asks:

• "Could you just make briefly the best case you can for why apartheid is the right word to use?"
• "Why not just describe that rather than bring in this word that’s freighted with so much history from another place?"
• "Would you describe for us, simply because the book has been criticized for its details, how did you write the book?"
• "Well, you’ve been challenged in your recollections of meetings....it’s been alleged....less reasonable than might actually have been the case. What was your version based on? Did you go back to notes and other documents that you had from the time?"
• "But when you recollect...were you working from your own notes?"
• "Ken Stein...has alleged that his recollection of that meeting is somewhat different."
• "There’s also been some criticism which you addressed this week at Brandeis...a sentence on page 213 of your book...."
• "Has that set you flipping through the pages of the book to see if there’s anything else there that you maybe just wasn’t expressed the way you intended?"
• "You mention you’ve been labeled an anti-Semite. You do use the word apartheid...which defenders of Israel regarded as a label that called into a lot of bad associations...would you agree that kind of labeling is not very productive?"

I don't have any problem with challenging Carter, but Inskeep doesn't even once probe any of the following assertions that Carter makes: "Forced separation within the West Bank…total domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military," "the horrible oppression and persecution of the Palestinian people," "massive Israeli confiscation of land and colonization of its choice sites," and "the apparently permanent acquisition, confiscation and colonization of choice sites throughout the West Bank." Instead, Inskeep attacks Carter's book with innuendo and second-hand criticism because if he were to address the issue of Israeli oppression and land confiscation, the facts of Israeli injustice would be irrefutable and indefensible.

Oh, and if this slam weren't enough, Inskeep promises that a critic of Carter's book will be interviewed on tomorrow's show. I'll wager that it won't be so hostile.

Antidote

As a follow up service to anyone with sense who is put off by the Petraeus worship (see previous post) on NPR, take a look at this post on "Bush's New Generals" from Helena Cobban. Also for those troubled by NPR's love of counterinsurgency check out her more recent post on the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of counterinsurgency. If you've never read Cobban's Just World News, I'd recommend it.