How to Pitch a War with Iran (with a backstop)

Dang! Guy Raz is batting a thousand when it comes to bad reporting. He's often trotting along with the President, or some other military or government bigwigs - and he is a loyal transcriber. Yesterday and today he's tramping about with Rice and Gates in the Saudi Arabia as they make nice with "moderate" princes and kings of the Gulf States and Jordan and Egypt's US-funded thug-for-life, Hosni Mubarak.

Who does Guy talk to for insight and critical analysis of this gas-on-the fire trip? To "officials traveling with Secretary Gates" and "former Defense Department liaison to the Saudis, Peter Rodman" (what a surprise). From these "officials" we learn that "the Gulf Arab states and Egypt and Jordan have two regional fears: one of a US withdrawal from Iraq and two, an ascendant Iran." Now that is some newsflash! From Rodman we get this gem:

"These countries have many options, they can just submit to Iranian domination or they can pursue a nuclear weapon program of their own which they may be flirting with or attempting to. The far preferable course for them is to have confidence in the Americans to be their backstop..."

The ramp-up for war with Iran pervades NPR coverage. Yesterday also featured a book recommendation from novelist Dalia Sofer who equates post-1979 Iran with Mussolini's fascist Italy, including it's anti-Semitic laws (I wonder what Iran's Jews would think of that?) Try to imagine for a moment if NPR would dare air a Palestinian author who equated the Israeli government with Mussolini's Italy- I think not. After all, it took them months to air former Pres. Jimmy Carter when he dared make the obvious comparison of Israeli occupation to apartheid.

Also I noticed during the news headlines that Flintoff reported on the deaths of three US soldiers and quoted "military officials" asserting that the soldiers were killed by an Iranian-supplied explosively formed penetrator (as usual, not a bit of proof is offered).

Goal! : I want America to Go Out

You'll hear about Iraq's soccer team upset victory and celebrations on NPR, but you won't hear what the team captain has to say about the occupation. How convenient. It's interesting to consider how different the coverage would be if he had said positive things about the US military invasion and occupation.

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

An Informative Crosspost

In the "Open Thread" below, blogger and professor Debbie Reese notes some significant errors in an NPR News story covering the history of Pueblo people. You can read her post here.

Open Thread

Any and all comments regarding NPR news are welcome.

A Breather

Hello readers. I have to confess I'm a bit burned out on listening to NPR News.

I'm in a work related training all this week with little time for listening/blogging and it has been a blessing. Next week I'm on jury duty and not likely to be posting a lot.

In the future I'll probably continue to do occasional posts, but I don't think I can keep listening to NPR as much as I have been this past year. NPR's News is far worse than I imagined it would be when I started this blog.

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Piling On

Here's Cokie Roberts, buckraking journalist, this morning discussing the modest proposal of Senator Russ Feingold to censure Bush and Cheney ( a motion that is long overdue):

"The Congress could seem to be ineffectual, or they could seem to be overreaching. Yesterday Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin proposed a censure resolution for the President and Vice President condemning their actions in Iraq and other things....things like that, if the Democrats seem to be just piling on a President who's already at remarkably low approval ratings on a war that the public has turned their backs on. The Democrats pile on on that that could be a problem."

If this doesn't make you want to toss your cokies cookies, what will?

Hell Freezes Over!

I'll end the weekend on an up note. Wow, great report on ATC tonight. Jackie Lyden interviews recent guest Joost Hiltermann, to talk about his newest book, A Poisonous Affair: America, Iraq and the Gassing of the Halabja. Hiltermann was an early critic of the war and the release of his book is an important event and an antidote to official American amnesia.

NPR gets a thumbs up for this one. More please!

A Kinder Gentler Torture State

Keeping with NPR's insistence that Saudi Arabia is run by "moderates" we get to hear about its great new rehabilitation program for "anti-terrorism" detainees. According to NPR and Saudi officials the program has "has prevented some young men from returning to al-Qaeda or other radical groups" and creates a "a relaxed, nonthreatening atmosphere" for detainees. If you know about the nightmare of Saudi detention and the institutional abuses of the Saudi government, then this report is nothing short of a mockery of human rights. Disgraceful.

I Don't Recall an Election

On Saturday and again this morning Dan Schorr puts an imaginative spin on the Democrats' failed attempt in Senate to shut down the Republican filibuster and get a withdrawal amendment voted on. Speaking of the all-night session Schorr says:

• [Saturday] "...they had made a strategic mistake. They thought that since all of the polls showed that Americans want to see troops coming back that if they took a step which was trying to get a few more Republican votes....what they didn't realize that while people want troops back they're not willing to sort of pull the rug from under the troops now and so I think that the Democrats learned a lesson."
• [Sunday] "The all-nighter fails to achieve the goal of setting a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. When it came right down to it many Americans were not ready to pull the rug from under the forces in Iraq and the Republicans mocked the overnight session."

Since when did pulling troops out of an illegal, incompetent war become "pulling the rug out" from under the troops? And when did a Senate vote become equal to what "people want" or what "many Americans" are ready to do?

The COIN of the Realm

On Saturday Weekend Edition Scott Simon talks to Sarah Sewall about the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual (which can also be downloaded from this site). The piece is an adoring assessment of US COIN in general and this manual specifically. Sewall gushes:

• "...the statements from this administration, while they talk about a terror threat, don't do much in the way of providing a world view and a framework for thinking about the US role in confronting it - and ironically I think this field manual goes farthest in providing us with a useful framework."
• "In counterinsurgency your goal is to enhance the legitimacy and the capability of the host nation government..."
• [regarding minimizing civilian casualties] "...the manual says that VERY EXPLICITLY [stated with great sincerity and emotion]."
• "It's a whole different mentality."
• "...this doctrine tells us what we can do so that we're not making the mistakes that we've made in Iraq."

Of course, it never even comes up why an insurgency develops (injustice, dictatorship, exploitation, invasion, and occupation) or the fact that the US has historically sided with the most despicable side in its counterinsurgency struggles (El Salvador, Guatemala, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Philippines, etc.)

Tom Hayden has an informative, scathing critique of the collaborationist role that academics like Sewall are playing in our increasingly militaristic national policies.

Health Care to Die For

In my previous post I noted NPRs championing of union concessions. They point out that a major problem for labor and management in the US is the skyrocketing price of health insurance. I know I pay $7000 a year for a mediocre 80/20 family, group plan with $20 office co-pays. Personally, I'd rather be paying that money in taxes for a single payer plan (Ooops, single payer plan is a bad word on NPR News) that would benefit everyone.

This morning NPR takes on the Health Care crisis, and as you might guess they focus on reform that would preserve the health insurance industry. I don't dispute that this is a position that one can argue for or against. What is incredible is that no serious attention is given to eliminating the insurance industry and going for a single payer national health care system.

The only person NPR sees fit to talk to is Len Nichols of the firmly pro-establishment New America Foundation. If you look at the Health Policy Program page of the NAF (which Nichols is the director of) you'll see that their recommendation is for

"the Program promotes a mandatory, citizen-based approach to health insurance that, combined with credible cost containment measures, can ensure universal coverage and enhance America’s long-term economic and social well-being."

"Mandatory" means you have to buy it just like car insurance. The way premiums have been going, I can just see those insurance executives rubbing their hands.

What's with NPR? Is it so hard to talk to articulate advocates for a single payer system. Maybe they are afraid it will kill them or the corporations that sponsor them...

Concession Stand

(Graphic from CRAP)

As the UAW faces a summer of negotiating major new contracts with US automakers NPR could have used this as an opportunity to look a the range of opinions regarding labor strategies and tactics in the current environment of predatory global capital, nonunion southern auto plants, and health insurance ripoffs.

Instead Frank Langfitt limited the discussion to how pragmatic and necessary concessions are.
Yesterday's ATC and today's Morning Edition focused mainly on how UAW president, Ron Gettelfinger, is so grown up and reasonable (though others would disagree). Here is what we hear about Gettelfinger:

• "instead of railing against the company, Gettelfinger went to work making changes in the plant and improving the product."
• "...brings a needed sense of realism as the union bargains with companies staring into the abyss."
• "... a sophisticated person."
• "Instead, the word that keeps coming up when you talk about Gettelfinger is pragmatic."

Langfitt does briefly mention that some workers are concerned. He says, "Like other workers, Parker wants Gettelfinger and union leaders to put up a fight. Parker says that if they keep giving up workers' benefits it undermines the union's very reason to exist." That was on ATC yesterday, but this morning we get the following interchange with another autoworker:

Langfitt: "...like other workers, Henry's resigned to concessions."
Henry: "We've been getting and getting and getting, and we may have to give a little back, it's as simple as that."
Langfit: "But he also thinks if Gettelfinger, the union president, makes too many concessions, workers will reject the contract....and yet the consequences of that could be even worse....the companies will just ship jobs to low cost countries."

See, unions have just been "getting and getting and getting." In fact according to Langfitt (and the conservative George Will) In earlier decades, when Detroit dominated the market, the United Auto Workers got great benefits for their members and built a virtual WELFARE STATE. Now the companies are trying to dismantle it." That is some loaded language. I'm looking forward to NPR's balancing this with describing the auto executives as setting up a virtual extortion ring! I think I'll be waiting awhile for that one.

Some good alternatives to this pro-concession reporting can be found at: Labor Notes and Counter Punch.

I Lie with a Little Help from My Friends

Man o' man, what a load of bunk Sec. of State Rice dumps into the compliant lap of NPR voice Michele Norris. Here's a few of the tidbits that Rice served up in the course of this love fest:

1. "The second intifada had been begun by Yasser Arafat."
2. "...Yasser Arafat was dealing with Iran to bring weapons in to the Palestinian territories."
3. "Palestinians have elected a man in Mahmoud Abbas and a prime minister, now, in Salam Fayad...."
4. "It's very hard to imagine a partner for peace that refuses to renounce violence and refuses to recognize the right of the other partner to even exist...."
5. "And we saw what Hamas did in Gaza, when they threw people off of buildings and then knelt to pray."

A journalist might have a few comments on these remarks. For example Norris might have said:

#1 - That is an extreme oversimplification Sec. Rice and shows that you accept completely the Israeli-Zionist version of events which calls into question the "honest broker" image you try to portray. Many credit Israeli brutality and Ariel Sharon's armed visit to the Temple Mount with sparking that Intifada."

#2 - Your claim about Iranian weapons and Arafat was never proven and again completely accepts the IDF version.

#3 - Fayad was not elected but appointed by Abbas, whose government a majority of
Palestinians rejected in the January 2006 elections that Hamas won.

#4 - But Israel refuses to renounce indiscriminate violence and collective punishment and the Likud party of Ariel Sharon who you strongly supported declares all of Palestine for Israel in its charter.

#5 - You certainly do embellish the violence of Hamas while ignoring the Fatah crimes during the time you are referring to - and of course you never mention the atrocities of the Israeli military against Palestinians which go back for decades.

One could go on and on. Not only does Norris never challenge the outright lies and slanted versions of Rice, she even lobs a whopper herself:"with groups that mean to do us harm — with Hamas...." Do us harm? Interesting that Hamas has never committed a documented terrorist act against the US and even worked to free the BBC's Alan Johnson.

Unfortunately, the whole interview is premised on the ridiculous notion that the Bush administration has not been engaged in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Not engaged? As the links above show, they've thrown the full weight of US military, diplomatic and economic support behind the Israeli government since coming to office - and that is very different than being "disengaged."

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Big Goals

Yesterday on ATC Michelle Norris stated "President Bush today sought to revive Mideast peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders." And then this morning Steve Inskeep reminds us that "All the setbacks of his Presidency have not stopped President Bush from declaring big goals. His latest is an effort for Middle East Peace. " Man, I didn't realize what a peacenik Bush was!

NPR has been making a lot of hay out of this latest Bush "proposal" for Israel/Palestine. What is sad is how mercilessly NPR limits the range of viewpoints on the Israel/Palestine issue, and how devoid of facts the reports are.

Yesterday featured Don Gonyea doing his typical parrot routine of restating Bush's words as if that somehow gives them more substance - and so we get:

• "On the hopeful side, the President pointed to Palestinian elections and the selection of the moderate, Mahmoud Abbas, as the Palestinian President."
• "Palestinians now face a choice between the moderates in President Abbas' government and Hamas...a group devoted to murder."

OK, and what about dissenting views? Gonyea says that "Critics have long accused the Bush White House of not being engaged early enough and aggressively enough in the Israel-Palestinian conflict." Well, that is vague and pretty darn easy on an administration that is shot through with Likudnik neocons (also see these resources). And as usual the one "critic" we do hear from is an insider (adviser to six Secretaries of State) , Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson International Center. Criticism of Israel's terror and violence is absent, but Goneya says, "Miller notes that the best opportunity for success may have already passed. Iran and Syria are greater obstacles than they were five years ago. And he says Hamas and Hezbollah had grown in stature as well."

On this morning's report from Michelle Kelemen Miller is back and Paul Pillar is also consulted. Pillar is a critic of the Bush administration, BUT not of overall US policy in Palestine. No surprise there; he is a veteran of US intelligence operations.

My gripe with NPR is not that they interview these people. They offer valuable information about US government perspectives and policies, but where are critics of the whole arc of US policy in the region? For that you'll have to go to places like Electronic Intifada or the information rich site If Americans Knew.

One For the Craw

Put down your copy of 1984; don't just read about newspeak, tune in to NPR news this morning and live it! Be warned, NPR this week is "taking some time this week to look at the ways this country is responding to the terror threat." Should be enlightening.

This morning Wertheimer goes right to the source of international terrorism - Columbus, Georgia home of WHINSEC/SOA one of the world's most infamous terrorist training camps. But that is so 1990's [in fact you have to go waaaay back to 1997 to hear anything about this dirty secret on NPR News].

On this morning's show Wertheimer interviews "Lt. Randy Robertson, he's the director of das Vaterland homeland security for the city of Columbus, Georgia." Robertson states:

"We are home of Fort Benning, which is one of the largest military installations in the world. Were also the world headquarters of AFLAC Insurance, and of Total Systems, which is the largest credit card processor in the world....So we feel that with the way terrorism is, that these infrastructures would definitely be a target for terrorists."

To which Wertheimer responds:

"We'll surely Fort Benning can take care of itself. And I was just wondering why - if Fort Benning places you at risk - you can't just lean on the anti-terrorism expertise out there to help you?"

Yeah, why not check out some of the "experts" who've graced the halls of Ft. Benning and see if they have some advice on anti-terrorism.

BTW, take a look at SOA Watch site, they are planning this November's (11/16-11/18) demonstrations at Ft. Benning, which have been drawing thousands and now tens of thousands, though you wont' here about it on NPR unless the protestors start riding motorcycles for war and patriotism.

Happy to be Hadley

Ugh. Why in God's name does NPR send its talking heads to do the work of journalists. On Friday's ATC the hapless Michele Norris goes mano-a-mano with National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley.

In round one it looks like Norris might actually put up a challenge. To Hadley's defense of Bush wanting Congress to back him 100% Norris counters:
"I'm wondering if the President is in some way asking members of Congress to abdicate their role to advise and consent and guide the President, particularly on foreign policy, and in doing so to defy the wishes of their constituents..." (I could almost here the crowd shouting 'Mee-chele! Mee-chele!')

Hadley does a little bob and weave and Norris follows up with this jab: "...when you look at this administration there have been a number of missed signals on the level of violence in Iraq after the invasion, on Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpiles, on a number of decisions about when and where to place troops, and when and where and how to replace certain people who were architects of the war--is [sic] the American public looks at what happened in the past, why should they trust this administration...?" (Uh oh, trouble - courage fatigue? - missed signals is pretty wimpy, but at least she is bringing up some legitimate points.)

Hadley, sensing that things might be getting a little too truthy retorts with the tried and true 9/11 brass knuckles: "...we should not underestimate the challenge that came to this country after 9/11..." It has the desired effect. Norris crumples. In a voice that can only be described as pleading she tries to make a comeback with "...and we're told this week that al-Qaeda is as great a threat now as it was before 9/11."

Hadley then lets loose with an astounding roundhouse: "No that's not actually what you're told." Not actually what you're told! Hey, Michele you are a journalist, not a schoolgirl in the principal's office. It doesn't have squat to do with "what you're told;" it has everything to do with the FACTS (old and new) that this administration has helped al-Qaeda regroup, train, and recruit. Does she make any protest? Not a peep; and she just lets him pound away:

• "It is certainly not where it would be if we had not as a nation taken all these actions that we've done since."
• "al-Qaeda continues to be a threat....going after them operationally, overseas so we don't have to deal with them at home....come up with an alternative vision...that is the freedom and democracy agenda."

OMG! "Not where it would be," the old "so we don't have to deal with them at home" rubbish, "freedom and democracy agenda." Sadly, that's where the interview ends - after Norris signs off from her prone position on the canvas.

Looks Like a Bloodbath To Me

Melissa Block talked to Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) yesterday on ATC. I think Melissa thinks she's George Bush because she kept repeating his arguments (which is pretty scary if you think about it).

The delusional thinking begins right at the get-go: "You could look at the preliminary report on Iraq, mandated by Congress and released today by the White House and say, ‘Progress has been made. The proverbial glass is half full.’ You could also say, ‘No the glass is half empty. Things aren’t getting better.'" Block is right, you can certainly say these things if you are uninformed or dishonest, but if you are a journalist your job is to show how not only is the glass empty, it's on the floor in about a hundred pieces and there's not even any frigging water to boot.

Next Block takes advantage of NPR's shameful history of minimizing the civilian slaughter in Iraq by a factor of ten. Considering that about a million civilians have been slaughtered in the Iraq War since 2003, what is one to make of these comments by Block?

• "President Bush today warned of the risk of mass killings in Iraq on a horrific scale. If that were to come to pass, what would you do then? Would you send troops back in then?"
• "But you’re talking about just thousands of US troops left by next April, what would happen if there were a bloodbath?"

Guess what Melissa? Over two million refugees, two million internally displaced, and one million dead out of 26 million people counts as a bloodbath. The glass may be empty, but the tub is full.

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Baby Steps

I'd be curious to know what reactions others may have had to two reports on NPR today. The first one was an interview with Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group. Hiltermann has been on NPR a little over a dozen times in the past 8 years, usually to talk about his work with Human Rights watch and Hussein gassing of the Kurds in the 1980s. (He has some really interesting recent comments on that history which I'd love to hear discussed on NPR).

Hiltermann is not the usual tool we get on NPR. He seems thoughtful and informed on the Iraq disaster. Ydstie asked Hiltermann, "Are you concerned that American politics is now going to speed forward and require the withdrawal of American troops on a relatively rapid basis?" To which Hiltermann answers, "Yeah, that is a concern I have. You know, I was against the war, but now I'm against a precipitous withdrawal of American forces...created a huge security vacuum and you have to fill it lest the country and the region descend into chaos."

The report ended there, which I found pretty frustrating. Isn't that's where the piece should have started. I couldn't help but feel that Ydstie framed the report to simply end on a note favorable to the continuing occupation, but I wanted to hear what Hiltermann proposes as a way forward: How does he address the unpopularity of the American occupation among Iraqis? How does he see the occupation ever ending? What would he say to the Bush administration? etc.

* * *

The second piece was a report from John Burnett embedded with US forces in an outpost outside of Baghdad. I have to give credit to Ydstie and Burnett for discussing how the administration's claim that Iraq is all about fighting al-Qaeda is misleading and simplifies a far more complicated situation facing US troops on the ground. Being "embedded" it's a limited report, but it was refreshing to hear NPR willing to air contradiction to some of Bush's lies.

Lopping History

Today was one of those maddening NPR reports where a valuable contribution to history is so chopped and defanged as to make it worthless. The book Legacy of Ashes: the History of the CIA by Tim Weiner looks like a good read. There's so much that could be talked about regarding the crimes of the CIA, and current miseries that the CIA helped bring about (the Iranian tragedy, Jihadism, Haiti) that you almost have to admire the ability of the Morning Edition crew of Ydstie and Montagne to reduce it to nonsense.

Montagne begins, "At the dawn of the Cold War Allan Dulles, Richard Bissell, and Frank Wisner were considered daring, imaginative and brilliant. Under them in the 1950s America’s spy agency launched audacious operations: it overthrew foreign governments, even attempted to assassinate foreign leaders – actions that are now recalled more with embarrassment than pride." [Who considered them daring, imaginative, brilliant? Guatemala and Iran - audacious? Embarrassment - instead of shame and disgust?]

Weiner states that, "[Wisner] was not interested in espionage which is the core mission of the CIA, he was interested in covert action...and that got the United States into a good deal of trouble." To which Ydstie responds, "And Wisner actually sacrificed hundreds of lives trying to do this during the Korean War." I was pulling my hair out at this point. I'm not sure how edited Weiner's remarks were, but it wasn't just the US that got into "trouble"; it was misery and death imposed on millions of people, the numbers are so huge that Ydstie's incredulous "actually sacrificed hundreds" seems grotesque.

Ydstie does ask "How different is the CIA now, than it was then?" And Weiner answers that "It’s the same organization…it is the President’s secret army." That's a great answer and a great place to start talking about the CIA's recent and current murders and tortures - but no such luck. The report essentially ends there.

Wouldn't it be great if NPR did some serious follow up on this piece and talked to John Stockwell former CIA-insider and critic, or William Blum former State Department official turned critic. There is so much dirty CIA history that it's a shame to see it more covered-up than covered.

Job Hunting In La-la Land

John Burnett is really beating the bushes in Iraq for a positive story. And since reporters seem unable to do any independent reporting there the story he gets is provided by the US Army. The Army has sent a team to set up a job fair in Baghdad and John Burnett is there:

"....The job fair was judged a success, more than a thousand people filed applications, some two hundred got jobs on the spot...and there was no bombing....but in order to win the war, in order for millions of Iraqis to go back to work - hotels and factories and shops and offices must reopen....."

Imagine if back in the summer of 2003, I'd told you that in four years the US war effort in Iraq would be failing in virtually all areas, and that Iraq would be in the midst of a vicious civil war and would be on the verge of collapse as a state, but that some reporters would still be clucking about "but in order to win the war...." Oh, and I'd have to sadly warn you, it wouldn't be the just the rightists on Fox or Clear Channel; it would be National Public Radio News. Imagine that!

Shoveling Up the Same B.S.

If you're a rock musician willing to sell your music to advertise stuff for sale then you are all right in NPR News World, but if you bring your music to to a cause such as stopping global warming then you're a target for ridicule. David Greene did his best to make the attendees and performers at yesterday's Live Earth event seem like a bunch of fools at best (quoting Dave Matthews on using cloth diapers) or hypocrites at worst:

"It was all to be very grand and high-minded but yesterday afternoon outside giant stadium it was all about tailgating and beer pong....beer pong involves trying to toss ping pong balls into cups of beer...Kara Mueller [sp.] was hosting one of the games outside an SUV...

You get the drift. NPR ends this little put down with a 50 second clip of the Police singing the refrain "Sending out an SOS" over and over and over...(and so the title of this post).

Compare other coverage (The Madison Capital Times or The Guardian of London) of the event and notice that they too question the effectiveness of such events--but with a lot less sneer. Readers who haven't seen it should also take a look at Chris Mooney's two part piece on global warming and media coverage of it - Part I and Part II which are posted at the Huffington Post.

Open Thread - Weekend

I'll be away for a few days. NPR related comments welcomed.

Signs That It's Working

NPR has fully embraced the Bush Surge strategy in Iraq. The they artfully set it up. First, we were treated on Independence Day to Bush quacking on about victory in Iraq. Instead of treating this invitation only military audience speech with the ridicule it deserves, NPR's David Welna gave it a respectful send up, going so far as to note that "Mr. Bush warned that advice from military commanders in Iraq — rather than politics — should dictate any troop withdrawals." (It's worth noting that NPR gave no coverage to Bush's Likudnut speech citing Israel as the model for Iraq).

And where are we going to get this "advice from military commanders?" That comes this morning from military mouthpiece, Guy Raz. Raz has been reading counterinsurgency "expert" Kilcullen (who honed his skills with that freedom-loving institution, the Indonesian military). NPR has had Kilcullen on before.

What do we learn from Raz and host Montagne? Here's a sample:

• Raz: "...the strategy is basically about driving literally a physical wedge between the general population and the extremists....he describes it is as clear hold and retain."
• Montagne: "And are there signs that this strategy is working?"
• Raz: "Well there are. There are signs that it’s working. The main problem with it is the lifeblood of the strategy requires two main elements - commodities that commanders don’t really have, which is time and troop strength....Ultimately, of course, with pressure coming down from Congress and the American public, military commanders in Iraq know that they may, they simply may not have those commodities."

There it is, the NPR line: The "surge" is working brilliantly and only needs time and troop strength to deliver the US a stunning victory, but the pesky Congress and the fickle American public just refuse to stick it out and are going to be responsible for a humiliating defeat. Stay tuned.

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Baquba Dooba Do!

Yet another milblog report from NPR. Know-nothing Melissa Block interviews Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek about how the US has "cleared" Baquba of al-Qaeda. Listening to this interview, you'd think that the main foe of the US in Iraq is al-Qaeda and not its own illegal invasion, gross incompetence, the insurgency and civil war (you get a far better picture from Informed Comment).

Melissa asks lots of questions about the torture chambers of al-Qaeda (more questions than ever asked of the US torture chambers in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Camp Cropper, etc.) as if al-Qaeda had a monopoly on torture in Iraq (hmm...what about that puppet government we are propping up in the Green Zone?)

You'd do well to be very skeptical of NPR's Baquba coverage given that just a few weeks ago NPR featured the pentagonally-embedded Mike Gordon (yes he of the recent Let's-Get-Iran rubbish).

Oh but all is not gloom and doom. To celebrate our "independence," stenographer Rachel Martin gives us a feel-good piece about our newest citizens who earned their privilege by serving Caesar (complete with a message from "Commander in Chief, President George W. Bush", and the attendance of Senators Surge McCain and Habeas Corpses Graham.)

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Don't Know Much About History

Skip NPR's chat this morning with regular guest, RAND terrorism hack, Bruce Hoffman. When asked by Renee Montagne if the "explosive filled vehicle" in the UK represents an innovative import from the Iraq War, Hoffman correctly notes "on the one hand this is not a new tactic," but then erroneously traces it back to Hezbollah 's attack on the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Well, well, isn't that convenient - ignoring the previous long history of the car bomb, including Israel's bloody use of it, and the post-1983 reliance on the car bomb by the US in Beirut and in its training of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan (training that inadvertently culminated in the 9/11 attacks).

For a complex and unnerving history of the car bomb use your spare time to read Mike Davis' history: Part I - The Poor Man's Air Force and Part II - Car Bombs with Wings.

More Math Fun

Don Gonyea reports from Kennebunkport, Maine this morning. Gonyea covers the protests that greeted Bush and Putin. As you might guess there were interesting discrepancies between Gonyea's report and those from other news organizations. Gonyea mentions that the protest rally "drew about a thousand people" whereas the AP cites about 1700 and the Bangor Daily News gave a figure of 1500. Punch those numbers in your calculator and you'll notice that even if you go with the lower 1500 number, Gonyea's guess is 33% lower.

Gonyea also states that "most protested the Iraq War; a few highlighted Putin’s crackdown on dissidents," which is interesting because both the AP and Bangor Daily News stories note that criticism of Putin was a significant message of the protesters.

But here's where the real math fun begins. Gonyea notes that about "two dozen counter-protesters" were there supporting Bush and the Iraq War. So we have at least 1500 protesters versus 24 counter-protesters and guess how the coverage breaks down in regards to airtime? The critics of Bush/Putin/war get 67 seconds (not bad in a four minute piece), but - wait - the 24 diehard Bushists get a full 30 seconds! If you just pull out your trusty calculator and do a strict proportional relationship of 1500 to 67 seconds, then the Bushist "crowd" of 24 should have got about 1 second of coverage.

Iranian Terror Networks - Oh My!

I sent in the following to the NPR Ombudsman today:

On your hourly news reports today NPR had Craig Windham report that "US troops killed more than two dozen insurgents today..." This was followed by Rachel Martin stating that "military officials say troops conducted two early morning raids in Sadr City looking for militants thought to be helping Iranian terror networks..."

There was NO evidence to support this claim and allegation. The allegation of Iranian "terror" networks is extremely provocative and groundless unless independently verified.

Inexcusable.

Two dozen militants? Which NPR reporter was on the scene? Did they inspect the bodies? Did they talk to locals in Arabic and determine that they were "militants." Just what is a "militant" anyway. Or did the frequently dishonest US military talking heads say they were militants and NPR just dutifully passed it along.

And then Rachel Martin and "Iranian terror networks!" I challenge NPR to produce one, just one, factual bit of evidence tying Iranian agents to the purposeful targeting of civilians in Iraq.

Powerful Reporting!

Korva Coleman reading the headlines on Saturday Weekend Edition stated that the British police had found and defused two "powerful" car-bombs.

Powerful? I'm VERY pleased that these cars loaded with gasoline (apparently about 50 gallons) and propane tanks and nails did not detonate and were disarmed--that is great! But perspective and information is what NPR should be providing, not information that hypes the threat.

A more accurate description would be "crude" car bombs as opposed to truly powerful car bombs of the ammonium nitrate sort that was used in Oklahoma City or the high-explosive types used in Iraq.

Just the First Step

In a recent Open Thread on this blog a perceptive reader noted, "Add Rachel Martin to the Army's secretary pool. She takes great dictation." I'll just let the record speak for itself. Here's today's All Things Considered's latest on "progress" in Iraq.

Siegel, primes the pump with "...despite the violence the US military says there are signs of progress in the effort..." and "Petraeus... said success may take more time than Washington is willing to give."

And then there's Rachel Martin:

• "Petraeus points at a colorful market bustling with traffic and shoppers....he shakes hands and asks if the tea is any good....these are the kinds of interactions General Petraeus wants to use to gauges success in Iraq....”
• “Petraeus is a week and a half into the most significant US offensive in Iraq to happen under his watch, and while dozens of al-Qaeda members have been killed and some key insurgent strongholds have been cleared, Petraeus says that’s just the first step."
• "Petraeus says it gets down to fundamentals..."
• "Petraeus insists that the surge is helping root out the militants who wage these attacks..."

This all has a familiar ring, doesn't it -"signs of progress," "bustling markets," "dozens of al-Qaeda members" killed [they had their membership cards on them no doubt], blah, blah blah? Maybe next time they'll mention "turning a corner"!

You certainly can see the outlines of the where this is going: Iraq could have been won if only the politicians and the impatient public had given it more time to work. Sounds like 1973 all over again.

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Chess and the General's Boy

On Morning Edition today Inskeep sucks up to talks to Major General Lynch (Major Propaganda) about operations in Iraq. There's no problem talking to major players in the US military about what's going on in Iraq, BUT there was not one critical, skeptical, confrontational moment in the interview (which is pretty outrageous given Lynch's penchant for delusional optimism). Most of this morning's interview consists of Maj. Gen. Lynch blabbing away without ever being asked to substantiate his claims - for instance:

• "...and then kill or capture the leaders of those terrorist networks."
• "...this deep in the operation we’ve killed or captured about a 180 of the insurgents…"

Call me cynical, but I'd have a few basic issues to raise. This conflating of terrorist with insurgent is remarkable, does he mean al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents attacking armed forces of the occupation, Sunni insurgents attacking civilian targets, Shiite government connected militias, etc. And equally important, I'd challenge the number of "insurgents" killed or captured given the regular (and very recent) US habit of calling anyone it slaughters "militants" "insurgents" or "terrorists."

The point of the interview where Inskeep really earns his medal comes when he asks General Lynch,

"As your troops have gone from town to town has anybody come out of their house and said, 'Where’ve you been?'"

Lynch can barely contain his glee as he chuckles,

"Yes, as a matter of fact they have, and they say, ‘We’re glad you’re here,’ and then they say, ‘are you staying?'"

God, those Iraqis just love us. After Shock 'n Awe, Abu Ghraib, and Haditha who could blame them. But for those few Iraqi dead-enders and those in the last throes, the only worry most Iraqis have is that the US military might go home before the job's done in, say, 25 or 50 years.

(Oh, and the graphic above - Maj. Gen. Lynch'em said without any sense of the ironic that US operations in Iraq were like "three dimensional chess in the dark." I'll say!)

More "War is Peace"

It would be interesting to know how many times NPR has coupled the name of the "Middle East Quartet" with such words or phrases as "peacemaker," "seeks peace," "promotes peace," etc. It's nothing new, of course, but you'll be counting a long time if you do the research. Does anyone seriously think the Quartet is interested in a just solution of Israel's attempt to destroy Palestinian culture? Can someone name one step that the Quartet has taken to demand that Israel renounce violence and return territory annexed and stolen since 1967? The Quartet may seek "resolution" of the conflict, but it is the same resolution that the US/Israeli expansionists want - subservience and capitulation by the Palestinians. One might hope that the Quartet's move of appointing the discredited Tony Blair as Middle East (NPR has a soft spot for Blair anyway) envoy would highlight the cynical aims of the Quartet, but no such luck. Here were a few of the choice remarks from yesterday and today:

• On ATC Norris states, "Tony Blair has a new job today….appointed as representative of the so-called Middle East Quartet, that’s the group of nations trying to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians." In the same piece Rob Gifford adds, "...the so-called Quartet, which seeks to bring peace to the Middle East." (That's subtle.)
• Then this morning Montagne notes "Tony Blair...was offered a new job...that would be promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians." (No bias there!)

I can't wait to hear who's next on the peace train, maybe that bleeding-heart, peace-loving Henry Kissinger can get called into action before he dies--after all he's buddies with the new British Prime Minister.

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Scraping the Bottom

What a relief not to hear NPR for days!

I have to say I was in Massachusetts on Friday when I heard the disgraced Bob Greene, waxing patriotic about Arlington Cemetery. To hear that sad-sack of a sleazeball lecturing listeners on propriety was galling to say the least.

I guess if you are a sentimental, fraud of a journalist, fired for unethical sexual behavior with a high school girl then there's always a spot for you at NPR -- especially if you are pushing the unquestioning worship of the US war dead.

Open Thread - On the Road

I'll be on the road for about five days and out of Internet/News range. Please feel free to comment on any and all NPR News related issues.

Sickening

Did corporate "down-sizing" ravage towns like Flint, Michigan and make CEOs filthy rich? Does our country have a culture of violence, a foreign policy of violence, and extremely lax gun laws that contribute to events like the Columbine shooting? Does the health insurance industry make money off depriving people of needed treatment and profit off of human suffering?

Instead of debating the core assertions of Michael Moore's body of work, NPR uses the upcoming release of his newest movie Sicko to quibble with the most irrelevant details of his movies and to basically savage him. Kim Masters is the snide hitwoman assigned the task this time. Last time it was the unctuous Scottie Simon.

Here's an examples: Moore: “The polls show it’s the number one domestic issue.” Masters: “Actually independent polls including ones by Gallup indicate that health care isn’t number one, but it’s up there.” Interesting because back in March 2007, health care WAS the number one domestic issue - with Iraq being the most crucial issue overall. Yes, there seems to be a slight shift in the latest Gallup poll - but it is irrelevant to Moore's overall argument.

Masters went out of her way to find every critical comment she could from reviewers: "a piece of Gonzo demagogery," "lowered the bar for documentaries," "appalled by his confrontation with Heston." Of Moore's first movie Roger and Me she states, "instantly critics attacked Moore for fudging his facts to strengthen his case." She fails to mention that many critics instantly raved about the movie too!

The piece ends with Moore noting that this attacking report shows that "This is the typical, you know NPR, afraid of being accused of having liberal bias — so, let's make sure we attack him enough in this piece." To which Masters snidely responds, "Did we, Kim Masters, NPR News."

Actually I think Moore was wrong. It's not that NPR is afraid of having a liberal bias; it's a reflection of the basic center-right, pro-business slant that is at the core of NPR's values.

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Dirty Dealing

In her inimical upbeat style Renee Montagne (with cheery music in the background) tells us "now the Pentagon is ready to deal again. This time to save archaeological sites in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Isn't that peachy! Too bad it just doesn't square with reality.

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Defending the Bully

Listening to NPR's coverage of the Middle East, I always have this image in my mind of a bully killing and beating up his victims, and if one of the victims tries something desperate (such as attacking the perpetrator) there is a barrage of criticism excoriating the victim for being irresponsible and using violence.

If you listen to today's coverage on the situation in the Occupied Territories, you'd never know that Israel has been killing Palestinian civilians at will, stealing Palestinian lands, building colonial settlements on occupied land, etc. The Israeli occupation and destruction of Palestinian society is never even mentioned. It's truly surreal.

Here's how the Sunday Weekend Edition breaks down:

• First, a report from Zionist sympathizer Linda Gradstein covers the appointed cabinet of AbuMazen in the West Bank. We hear how Israeli Prime Minister Olmert "will provide food and medicine to Gaza" and that he considers the "new cabinet without Hamas in the West Bank could be a partner to peace."

• Next it's on to Dennis Ross from the neocon, AIPAC-founded WINEP. Ross never gets challenged on his "analysis" of the situation in which he states that "the first challenge is for the US to stop weaponry from reaching Hamas...because if longer range rockets are fired into Israel...the Israelis will feel obliged to do something"(!). His advice to the current administration is "to focus its attention is on the following kinds of priorities"- 1.) Work to make the West Bank a model of success. 2.) Shine a spotlight on the Egyptians because they're letting weapons into Gaza. Ah yes, the old "model of success" approach - just like in Iraq! And the Egyptians - that was a new one for me. I kept wondering when he might meekly mention all those Israeli settlements carving up the West Bank. Lastly he chimes in with how he would advise Bush on his upcoming meeting with Olmert: "...let’s focus together on what is really the crux of the problem right now – the crux of the matter – and it is a competition between Fatah and Hamas."

• Lastly we hear from Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland who is also with the Brookings Institute (them again!). Supposedly he is going to talk about the "Arab perceptions" of what is going on. The best he can do is insist that whatever approach the US and its allies take will have to include not just the West Bank, but Gaza too. However, there is no condemnation of the US-Israeli policies or actions in the region (which is a strange omission if we are supposedly going to hear "Arab" perceptions.)
  

Body Counts

"...75,000 people have died on both sides of the Iraq War" asserts Christopher Fettweis, assistant professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. And does John Ydstie mention that this figure is grossly understated based on the respected Lancet Study -which found IRAQI CIVILIAN deaths as high as 655,000 back in October of 2006. No surprise, really, since NPR has made a practice out of savaging the Lancet numbers (numbers which even the Blair government secretly acknowledged as accurate).

Fettweis was trying to make the point that the US loss in Vietnam was a greater "moral" failure than Iraq is - but, hey, there's still a few more years for the US to match the slaughter it achieved in Vietnam.

I will say that Fettweis was at least on to discuss the obvious fact that the US effort in Iraq is a failure.

Bullets not Ballots

There was one half-decent piece from the Occupied Territories of Palestine this week on NPR. It occurred on Wednesday's ATC and featured a Gazan commenting on the attack by Palestinian gunmen against a peace demonstration opposed to the fighting in Gaza. The commentator said:

"Many people here — including myself — think that the West is doing everything it can to weaken the Palestinian Authority. And Israel is, as well. All of their acts are aimed at Hamas, but they have also weakened Fatah, the more moderate faction here in Gaza. This is hypocrisy by the West and Israel as they steal the hope by tightening this economic embargo against the Palestinian people. Desperate people don't think rationally. Desperate people turn radical. And that is just what is happening in Gaza."

Hypocrisy by the West and Israel - OMG! an utterance of truth slipped through on NPR. Let's hear from this fellow again.

But tonight was not Wednesday (probably never will be again). First we had Eric Westervelt reporting on Hamas' takeover of Gaza and talking about the "quartet of Middle East peacemakers." Then it's Michelle Norris talking to Martin Indyk, former Israeli ambassador and the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Indyk is all about the "moderate" Abu Mazen and Fatah. Needless to say there was nothing about the US policy of undermining the democratically elected government of Hamas, starving Palestinians, and arming and training Fatah in the hopes of destroying Hamas in a Fatah-led coup.

For better coverage take a look at Tony Karon's piece, Ali Abunimah's piece in EI, or Helena Cobban's article.

Update: Weekend Edition Saturday (6/16) had a pretty good interview with Rashid Khalidi who used to be at the Univ. of Chicago, but is now at Columbia University.

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

Reagaphilia

Here's a little challenge to any die-hard believers in NPR's liberal (or even balanced) credentials: Find just one progressive, critical piece on the presidency of Ronald Reagan aired on NPR News in the last 5 years.

Tonight on ATC I had to fight the gag-reflex as NPR aired an adoring commentary on Reagan by Rich Lowry, editor of The National Review. The commentary focuses on Reagan's staged "tear down this wall" speech in Berlin. Michele Norris introduces it by noting that "Lowry says if those words don’t give you goosebumps..."

Then Lowry tells us that "beneath Reagan’s sunny exterior was a stern determination and a hatred of Marxism…conflicts with communist-infiltrated unions in his days in Hollywood." He might have also mentioned that beneath that "sunny exterior" was one of the the most dishonest, corrupt, death-squad loving presidents we've had until - well until now! Lowry is also out to conflate revolutionaries like Che Guevara with mass murderers like Stalin by lumping them all under the label of "communism." He tells us about the "tens of millions of dead bodies in the twentieth century" that Communism left in its wake, but nothing about the millions of corpses left by just the US alone.

Well, it's one thing to give airtime to a Reagaphile like Lowry so that he can pretend that Reagan was worthy of anything but disgust or prison, but one has to wonder where any countervailing opinion is? It clearly is not on NPR.

One interesting little exercise is to search "Richard Lowry" on NPR's site (16 hits) or "Rich Lowry" (25 hits) and then search Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation (what do you know, 1 hit!). Twenty-five to one - sounds like a liberal bias to me! Even add in the editor of The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild (3 hits) and you still get a 25 to 4 hit return. I think NPR is trying to make a Bonzo out of all of us...

Open Thread - Monday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Sock Puppet Reporting

NPR is back treating the Bush-Snow Iraq-as-South Korea nonsense as if it were a reasonable approach to ending the Iraq disaster. Flattening history and complexity, Liane Hansen opens up with this salvo:

"There are thousands of US troops in South Korea. They’re guarding against an invasion from North Korea, as they’ve done for fifty years. The deployment has worked. This past week President Bush said the troops helped achieve an objective for all of us, and today the far east is peaceful."

It is worth noting how subtly dishonest this intro is. First, it portrays the US role as solely protective - nothing about the long years of propping up South Korean dictators and protecting US business investments from invasions of labor and human rights activists. And it simply declares that "It has worked" and that "the far east is peaceful." And as in Iraq, the opinions of the people who actually live there don't count for squat (see this Angus-Reid study or this RAND report).

Then we get to Tom Bowman who turns to Tony Snow sound clips, Secretary of Defense Gates, Brookings Institute hack Michael O'Hanlon, American Enterprise Institute rightist Fred Kagan, and former Pentagon official James Miller. No surprise that there is no serious dissent from the US project of staying in Iraq forever. Bowman himself declares that American troops would be

"training the Iraqi forces, serving as a stabilizing presence, and guarding against possible troublesome neighbors – especially Iran."

Reread it and weep: a stabilizing presence...troubling neighbors. Amazing!

Open Thread - Weekend

NPR related comments welcomed.

Highly Charged and Complex

"Highly charged and complex" is how Linda Gradstein defined the "question of land ownership in the Westbank" on Thursday's Morning Edition. A reader of this blog commented, "Heard the beginning and end of the "settlements" story....Neither at the beginning, nor at the end, did they say *illegal* settlements. Was wondering if anyone heard mention of the I word otherwise?"

That didn't come up in Gradstein's piece. Instead she described an Israeli colonizer who "always hoped to have good relations with their Arab neighbors. At the beginning, he says, the villagers of Turmus Aya welcomed them." Reminding me of White southerners I knew as a kid who used to tell us how happy Black people were before all the Civil Rights troubles, we hear this Israeli say "They liked the idea that we were here, because they knew, from other places, that wherever the Israelis come, progress comes. They knew that the village would get electricity and water – they would get work here and that's how it was for quite a few years." Of course, Gradstein adds, "Settlers say that all changed with the first intifada." Ah yes, the good ole days.

The I-word did come up today with Eric Westervelt's misleading piece. The piece might have well been written by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in that it pretends their are legal and illegal settlements in the occupied territory. Funny thing is that only Israel's government and US politicians hold to this fiction. The complete illegality of ALL Israeli settlements built since 1967 in the Occupied Territories is recognized by major human rights groups like Amnesty International and B'Tselem, and by several UN Security Council resolutions such as 446, 452, and 465.

A much more informative and lively discourse on the 1967 wars was held on Democracy Now! today. It featured Israeli historian Tom Segev, Palestinian physician Mona El-Farra (her blog is From Gaza with Love) and U.S. scholar Norman Finkelstein.

In the Shallow End

Inskeep interviews Bono this morning. There's a lot a great questions one could ask Bono in an interview. I would have liked to hear what he thinks his greatest accomplishments are in his work on Africa. It would have been fascinating to ask him if he has any misgivings of getting so chummy with leaders of the G-8 who have helped bring so much misery to Africa. Or what about a recent letter to Bono on debt relief?

Striving for banality, Steve Inskeep says, "I asked a lot of people what they wanted to know from you before this interview and there were a number of serious questions that were thrown out [no kidding!] and then people would say, what's up with the colored glasses, why does he do that?"

We all know what glasses Inskeep wears! I guess Bono has to be polite, but it would have been great if he could have responded by asking,"Are you trying to be stupid or does it just come naturally?"

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

A Deluxe Occupation

I've given up on ever getting decent coverage of Israel from NPR. If you want to hear Eric Westervelt say, "With Israel's total victory in the Six Day War also came weighty responsibilities, especially the occupation of the heavily populated Palestinian West Bank." Or if you can bear today's comment from Westervelt: "Israeli writer Gershom Gorenberg says those conflicting feelings are widespread among East Jerusalemites who are living under what he calls, 'Occupation Deluxe.'" Then NPR is the place for you. Weighty responsibilities and Occupation Deluxe - damn!

It's striking to compare this tepid coverage with the BBC's look back where we learn that the Israeli military lied to the Israeli public about it's knowledge that it would easily destroy the Arab armies arrayed against it. And on the BBC we hear how the Soviets duped Nasser into attacking Israel because of - guess what - the Israeli's nuclear program at Dimona (that's an inconvenient truth!) For a really fine consideration of what the 1967 war means check out Tony Karon's piece at Rootless Cosmopolitan, Makdisi at Electronic Intifada, or Amnesty's report on 40 years of occupation.

A final note: NPR erroneously reports that Israel is not occupying Gaza, which is not correct but is excellent Zionist propaganda.