Iran - Again

NPR is back to being a rebroadcaster for anti-Iran propaganda from the Pentagon. Tonight Mike Shuster reports on the Pentagon's return to its hollow claims of blaming Iran for arming and training Iraqi insurgents.

Shuster gives unchallenged airtime to Major Marty Webber who, blaming Iran, claims, "This is the stuff that has been coming into this country since coalition forces have - you know - come in and liberated Iraq." Liberated?

Then Shuster introduces Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell: "He called any Iranian involvement in Iraq outside interference." Outside interference, from a general who happens to be about 9000 miles from home; I'll give Shuster credit for getting that one out without a snort!

Caldwell's voice then comes in: "The death and violence in Iraq are bad enough without this outside interference. Iran and all of Iraq’s neighbors really need to respect Iraq’s sovereignty and allow the people of this country the time and the space to choose their own future." Wow! How can you even begin to unpack this nonsense.

It's telling how much time and attention is given to this unsubstantiated "news," while the other Iranian news of note was the likely truth of the claims made by the recently freed Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi. Given the long and sordid history of US (and Iraqi security forces) torture practices in Iraq over the last four years, you might think that NPR would give some serious airtime to Sharafi's claims that he was tortured with US complicity - especially since today Sharafi allowed himself to be physically examined by a Red Cross representative and an Iraqi ambassador.

Maybe we'll hear about it on Morning Edition tomorrow - or maybe not.

Werewolfowitz

NPR covers the Wolfowitz sleazy favors at the World Bank. Amazingly, they offer nothing of Wolf's criminal responsibilities for the war in Iraq and the rampant corruption and favoritism in that project of "this new American century." Would it be so hard to offer just a little background for this unindicted war criminal, such as that offered by the BBC when Wolf first came to the World Bank. Other than contributing to the US of Amnesia, the story does a pretty good job of explaining the current controversy.

A Seat for Ajami

This from yesterday's exceptionally bad Morning Edition:

(Inskeep) "And did you get a sense that things were improving?"
(Ajami) "Yes, absolutely. There is a tremendous sense of optimism, some hope invested in this security plan, and some hope invested, to be honest with you, even in the arrival in Iraq of General David Petraeus."

When I heard that I didn't know who to be more disgusted with--Fouad Ajami for being such a lying sycophant, NPR for bringing on this Iraq War apologist again, or John Hopkins for giving cover (and money) to such a craven war monger.

With Ajami we really enter the land of the surreal. "Tremendous sense of optimism." That's a doozy. Ajami goes on to put the blame for the triumph of Shiite extremism in Iraq at the feet of the Sunnis who he charges with putting their faith in the insurgency. Ajami is always looking to put the blame for the Iraq disaster anywhere but on those responsible (no surprise, since as Inskeep tells us in this piece, Ajami is "a writer who sometimes advises the White House.")

As I posted last year, it is very telling to see where blame for the disaster of Iraq will be placed. Instead of seeing the US role in fostering the Shiite extremism in Iraq NPR continues to try and convince us that the main problem is the Iraqis themselves.

(Note: graphic came from this site by way of the now defunct Billimon site, with arrow added for Defendant Ajami.)

Avoid Politics

When you hear Steve Inskeep say "avoid politics" be afraid. Translated it means "go along," "no dissent," "don't protest," and it means Inskeep likes it. So today he sings the praises of Conor Oberst's latest CD: "Conor Oberst...first captured the public attention as a protest singer with ambitions that brought to mind Bob Dylan. Now at the advanced age of 27, Oberst seems to have mellowed...new album...is out today; it mostly avoids politics."

Yes $300,000 Inskeep(see p. 7 of this PDF link) likes mellow. The excerpts featured on this sad little report sound more like Muzak than music (Inskeep: "...strings and girl group harmonies"), which is a shame because Oberst has a great sound.

The web write-up of the story is even more offensive, stating, "Bright Eyes' new album, Cassadaga, mostly shies away from political screeds."

Fetch!

Juan Williams just can't let the Bush-version of the Pelosi trip to Syria go. He's back on to parrot the charges of Bush, Cheney, and the Washington Post. Here's his "analysis" with the sharp Steve Inskeep: "Nancy Pelosi was off to the Middle East, specifically to Syria, and she went there to talk to Bahar al Assad, the leader of Syria, but didn’t get too good a reaction—the Washington Post said it was a foolish trip…Bush said it was unfortunate…Cheney said it was bad behavior..."

Instead of following the obvious story which is why did Olmert lie about what he told Pelosi, Williams and Inskeep - like the rest of the pack - just pick up the Bush-Post line and run with it. Ruff!

Vocabulary Lesson for "Airy" Shapiro

(Graphic from eBooks@Adelaide)

Airy: 1. Of or relating to air [especially hot air!]. 2. Unreal, illusory.

Airy Ari talks to Liane Hansen this morning as he tries to prop up the sullied character of Consigleri Gonzales and cast aspersions on the Senate Judiciary Committee. First, here is how Airy characterizes the assertive letters of the Committee Chair Sen. Leahy: "The letters tend to be very pointed, almost snarky." SNARKY?

Snarky: 1. Crotchety, snappish. 2. Sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner.

Shapiro then describes one of the letters as demanding evidence of why the President claims there was no wrongdoing and lists evidence indicating wrongdoing. True it's not the subservient Congress that Shapiro has been comfortable with for the last 6 years, but it's not snarky. And if you look at Leahy's website you can find one of these letters to the White House and it's simply direct, professional and to the point.

There is a marked change in Shapiro's tone when the when Liane Hansen asks what Gonzales is doing to prepare for his upcoming April 17th testimony. Shapiro states, "This is his biggest make or break moment....his greatest opportunity to convince Congress and the American public that he deserves to remain Attorney General despite those mistakes." Now if that isn't a positive framing of the story. I wonder if Shapiro knows the following word:

Biased: 1. Giving a settled and often prejudiced outlook to.

Open Thread - Sunday - something different

NPR related comments welcomed. I've added this Sunday "Open Thread" because of the fine comment posted by Willie, a reader, regarding this morning's story on a blogger in the Green Zone. I've reposted Willie's in the comment section of this post.

Vocabulary Lesson for Scott Simon

In his chit chat with Daniel Schorr this morning Scott Simon had the following to say about the war spending bills passed in Congress: "...the struggle over an emergency spending bill that congressional Democrats have made hostage to some kind of timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq."

That is an interesting way to put it, "made hostage"...hmmm. Given that the US troops were sent into the deadly situation they are in on false premises and outright lies, it is a funny turn of phrase to use. Also given the images of hostages that have emerged from this sickening conflict, Scott Simon seems to need a little graphic refresher of what hostages are and what they aren't.

Here we see Iraqi insurgents holding hostages:


And here we see the US Senate in session:


I realize that for the ideologically challenged, it is a difficult distinction, but there is a difference!

But Even the Washington Post

Robert Siegel's interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offers a peak into NPR's ideological baseline (with an emphasis on base!). Siegel has this to say to Pelosi: "You have been criticized not just by President Bush and Vice President Cheney for this trip, but even the Washington Post editorial page devotes an editorial called 'Pratfall in Damascus' about your visit and talks with President Assad."

Only someone who's idea of legitimate political discourse is so extremely narrow and constricted would make such a nonexistent contrast between the WaPo's editorial pages and the Bush-Cheney ideology. A quick look on Common Dreams turns up several reports on the Bush-infiltrated, pro-war bias of the WaPo editorial page (not to be confused with some of it's actual reporting which can be pretty good at times.) If you can bear to look at the actual "Pratfall in Damascus" editorial, you'll see that it might as well have been written by a Bush-Cheney speech writer as these excerpts reveal:
"As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel..."
"...the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president."
"Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq."

If you doubt that Siegel has an ideological bias favoring US (and Israeli) imperial dominance in the Middle East (as opposed to compromise and justice) consider the following grotesque statements made by Speaker Pelosi that went completely unchallenged:

• "...we are interested in peace in the Middle East, with Israel, to go to Damascus and say to President Assad the same message that President Bush has for him....there is no division in our views..."
• "The message that we carried from Prime Minister Olmert was the exact message that he gave us, he is a man of peace..."
• "...what we went to the Middle East was to convey a message of where we are in agreement with the President…what we stand together on."

If ever Pelosi deserved criticism, it is for these assertions, but they square nicely with the ideology of NPR so she gets a pass--and if this is the best that the leader of the "opposition: party in the House can offer, we are in some seriously deep doo-doo.

Blowing Smoke

First, a tip of the hat to NPR for hosting an interview with Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance on yesterday's ATC. A visit to the DPA website is well worth your time, as they take issue with the whole concept of the "war on drugs;" it is also a great resource for young people wanting serious information on illegal drugs and their dangers. It's too bad NPR also didn't contact one of their usual think tanks, the libertarian CATO Institute, which also challenges the "war on drugs."

Sadly, though, this interview is lost in the general smoke screen of John Burnett's whole series which accepts the basic premises of the "war on drugs." On the same ATC, Burnett has a piece that is critical of John Walters, the current "Drug Czar" - what a title! The main thrust of the piece is that the current "Drug Czar" is not pursuing the "war on drugs" with adequate vigor. From Burnett we learn that "Walters has also had rocky relations on Capital Hill; four members of Congress, all prominent drug warriors..." - prominent drug warriors, give me a break. And lest we as a nation slack off in this glorious drug war Burnett has these pearls of wisdom for us:

• "...what troubles people who’ve dedicated their lives to fighting drugs, is our short memory."
• "Antidrug activists say this is precisely the time not to back off."
• "If there’s anything 38 years of the drug war has taught us, it’s that we forget it at our peril."

Over the top boys...and on to VICTORY!

Big White Lie

Yesterday afternoon NPR's Michelle Norris reported on Florida s latest moves to rescind parts of its laws stripping felons of their voting rights. This report was remarkable for what went unsaid. First, no mention was ever given to the role that felon disenfranchisement played in the Jim Crow south. Secondly, and perhaps even more shocking, is that there was not one reference made to the pivotal role of fraudulent felon disenfranchisement carried out in Florida (as noted in The Nation, Mother Jones, Salon.com, and the AP) during the stolen election of 2000 which put George Bush in the White House. It's a stunning omission. It would be like reporting on Army Corps of Engineers flood projects without mentioning the debacle of the levee failures in New Orleans.

I thought perhaps that I was being a bit hard on NPR and that maybe they had given coverage to the fraud of the Florida "scrub lists" in the election of 2000, but if you search "DBT" (the company that carried out the scam) on NPR's website you get NOTHING! If you search "Database Technology" (the full name of the company) you do get ONE decent report by Phillip Martin from December 2000--but there is nothing else, no follow up whatsoever.

Open Thread - Friday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Failings Will Happen

This morning we learn how the US has the "best trained armed force that we’ve ever had." We learn that after hearing about how sensitive and gentle the US military is in extreme situations in places like Iraq. I loved how in the audio clip of JAG training, the US didn't shoot a guard who raised his weapon...that was pretty funny.

Listening to this piece on NPR you would never know that Abu Ghraib was not an aberration, but was the standard operating procedure for abusing detainees in Iraq (the aberration being that it was indisputably caught on film). Instead Ari Shapiro tells us that "when the military has high profile public failings like the Abu Ghraib abuses or the massacre at Haditha, JAGs investigate." See, it was just a public failing--and JAGs took care of it.

We also hear from a retired JAG who runs the oxymoronic "Center for Law Ethics and National Security" at Duke University. According to Shapiro this man "says failings will happen." That's reassuring.

What I find really aggravating about this piece is that I actually would like to hear from some JAGs -- those who have shown the integrity of opposing the treatment of detainees in the sham of the "war on terror" -- and not these sorry apologists.

White Lies

A kind reader pointed out this morning's insulting take on the Brigham Young University protests against Dick Cheney coming to deliver BYU's commencement address. Howard Berkes spends a lot of time talking about the colors that Republicans are wearing--blue--and then goes on to mention that the protesters against Cheney will be wearing white. He informs us that white is the color of surrender! Subtle isn't it.

If Berkes had done a little poking around he might have realized that white is often the color of peace, and has been employed by the women's suffrage movement in the US, by Cuban women dissidents, by G-8 anti-poverty protesters, Italian anti-globalization activists, and the immigrant rights demonstrators of 2006. So much for surrender.

Open Thread - Wednesday & Thursday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Governor General Koppel

Koppel weighs in on the British military personnel that Iran is holding prisoner. Here was the telling moment of Koppel's commentary:

"Either that or the British will dispatch an envoy to eat humble pie, apologize for the intrusion and get their people home again. It's humiliating and outrageous, but we're in no position to have another war in the Persian Gulf."

Hmmm...and did Koppel express any such indignation over the US seizure of Iranian officials in Baghdad in December or later in Irbil in January? I guess it's only "humiliating and outrageous" when the underlings do such things, but it's our right and prerogative -- and military punishment would be justified if only we were in a better position to act.

What Was I Smoking

Here's a little quiz. Guess the source of this quote:

"...it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization..."

THE NATIONAL REVIEW! For God's sake, even The National Review can surprise--but not NPR. What was I smoking when I saw that NPR was doing a series on "the war on drugs" and wondered if they might actually question the whole premise of the war on drugs. Not a chance, just as they never dare question the premise of the similar farce called "the war on terror."

You might hope that any serious coverage of "the war on drugs" would look back at the anti-Hispanic roots of anti-drug laws (particularly anti-marijuana laws). Any thinking person (and apparently there are some even at The National Review) would have to ask oneself what is the purpose of the war on drugs if it isn't just to make the police powers of the state more robust and to criminalize certain sectors of the population (ahem...Black folks!) To get a sense of this it is worth doing a Google search of "war on drugs" and "black codes" (here are the first three results--one, two, and three.)

So it was that Mondays ATC piece looks only at the failure of the "war on drugs" to stop all drugs coming in to the US and today's piece is a bit of hogwash from Juan "Plan Colombia" Forero where we get to here how Plan Colombia has helped "reduce the violence" in Colombia--wow!

Open Thread - Tuesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Little Mr. Sunshine

Opening Morning Edition's piece on Iraq is "Straight Talk Express" McCain trying to pass off a load of b.s. about progress in Iraq: "Things are better, and there are encouraging signs....Never have I been able to drive from the airport. Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today."

Instead of taking on McCain's lethal dishonesty and obvious con job, NPR gives him an assist with Steve Inskeep talking to Lourdes Garcia-Navarro about "some progress" in the security situation in Iraq. Garcia-Navarro is a bit more sanguine than the upbeat Steve Inskeep. She notes that "last week alone 600 Iraqis were killed...US soldier deaths are not down either...official figures from Iraq’s government shows that in general, civilian deaths were up last month about 15%..." but she does add that "the good news, it has to be said, is sectarian murders, yesterday there were 24 victims in the capital. The numbers we’re seeing go from the 20s to the 40s, and that is really much, much lower than during the height of the blood letting." She also notes what Juan Cole of Informed Comment predicted months ago: the insurgency has stepped up its attacks outside of Baghdad.

Here is the part that really got my goat. Inskeep observes, "I want to make sure I understand this. You’re saying that in recent weeks extra American troops have put their lives on the line to buy time for the Iraqi political process and so far at least people have not used the time."

Well, Inskeep, they have put their lives on the line not to "buy time for the Iraqi political process" but because they've been ordered to do it by their bumbling commander-in-chief who ignored his own Iraq Study Group and the will of the voters in a gamble to save the failure, the disaster, the horror of his making that is Iraq. They're sacrificing to buy time all right, time so that Bush can finish his term without the failure becoming an utter defeat before he leaves office. Yes, its the bloody calculus of this soulless President - and now Sunshine McCain - who feel that thousands more Iraqi and American lives are a worthwhile price for their political ambitions.

Open Thread - Monday

NPR related comments welcomed.