Warm Fuzzy Counterinsurgency

Friday's ATC was especially bad, so one more critique. Tom Bowman (NPR's Pentagon spokesperson reporter) profiles (i.e. provides a glowing assessment) of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus who is set to take over command of all U.S. forces in Iraq.

What is especially misleading about this feature are the assertions made about counterinsurgency:
(Bowman): "Retired Army General Jack Keane says Petraeus understands how to work with the local population and encourage them to break with insurgents – the essence of what the military calls counter insurgency."
(Keane) says that Petraeus "clearly understands proven counterinsurgency practices which have got to be put in place."
(Keane): "It’s all about securing the population and it’s not been done, and he [Petraeus] clearly understands how to secure that population."
(Bowman): "Petraeus is no ordinary general he has a PhD from Princeton – his thesis topic: The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam. He is among those who believe the army after Vietnam forgot how to fight insurgencies. He recently coauthored a new army manual on that topic."

In theory, some of the manual sounds reasonable and even humane. But the record of US counterinsurgency is anything but reasonable and humane. As Matthew Yglesias points out at TPM Cafe, the "successes" the US has had with counterinsurgency (as in the Indian Wars or in Central America) have relied on mass killings and brutality.

This glossing over the bloody history of US counterinsurgency practice (versus propaganda) is pretty much par for the course at NPR (previous case in point). This doesn't make it any less reprehensible, especially since the only way to achieve the US imperial goals for the Middle East is probably going to be through more mass slaughter of those who live there.

Wonk Coup

(Image from Democracy Cell Project )

Just about everything wrong with Guy Raz' report yesterday from the pro-war, far right American Enterprise Institute (AEI), I've already noted about a previous Raz report from the AEI.

Yesterday on ATC Raz opens with distracting banalities about the "roast beef wraps and chocolate chip cookie bars" at the AEI presentation that promotes sending thousands more US troops to Iraq. Keep in mind that this plan will undoubtedly kill tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of more Iraqis and thousands more US troops, but Raz describes this occasion as "Washington’s version of an LA movie premier…"

Raz has this to say: "AEI isn’t just another Washington wonk factory, it’s become – and I don’t say this lightly – a kind of unofficial policy shop of the Bush White House." He also should have said that AEI is a favorite "go-to" think tank of NPR News. Raz does mention that a MoveOn.org protest was occurring and lets its director say, "Washington policy makers who listen to AEI are a heroin addict going back to the needle.” Raz then explains this by stating, "The needle he’s talking about here is the idea that Iraq can be won." That's not exactly right, I think he's using the metaphor to characterize the fact that policy makers (and NPR too) keep going back to AEI even though their theories and policies on Iraq and the Middle East have been proven to be completely wrong and morally bankrupt.

The story that NPR should be covering is the stunning truth that a small group of right-wing extremists housed at the AEI think tank is running the foreign policy of the US government in opposition to both the expressed and polled will of the populace. Now that would be a story.

Open Thread - Weekend

NPR related comments.

From His Perch

But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

(from "Sailing to Byzantium" by William Butler Yeats)

As you may know I'm not a big fan of David Greene's work on NPR (see this post for example). He identifies with the President more than a journalist should. And so I had to laugh when this evening featured a report on the shuffling of military, intelligence, and diplomatic personnel by the White House. Michele Norris says, “NPR’s David Greene is watching all these changes from his perch at the White House.”

Squawk!

Shredding History

In the moral universe of Steve Inskeep it's just a lark that one of the great 20th century American heroes of conscience shows up to challenge the current climate of lies and secrecy in our threatened democracy. "Whatever downsides there may be to living in the nation’s capital, there are moments when you think, ‘ONLY in Washington.’ One of those moments happened yesterday to NPR’s Ari Shapiro," Inskeep informs us.

Shapiro follows this send up by misinforming listeners about the famous Pentagon Papers, and the man who leaked them, Daniel Ellsberg. Shapiro states, "Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers 35 years ago, 7000 pages containing the military’s top secret account of the Vietnam War." Morally speaking, that tells us nothing - leaking top secret war documents could be good or bad. What made them "top secret" - and what made Ellsberg's action so honorable - was what they revealed about the US Government regarding the war. As the Wikipedia article on Daniel Ellsberg states, "They revealed the knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed a deep cynicism towards the public and a disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians." (Sounds vaguely familiar doesn't it?) Shapiro also fails to mention that Ellsberg released the papers over a year after getting no congressional support for revealing them in the Senate, and with the full knowledge that he was ending his privileged career and could spend the rest of his life in prison for leaking them.

By ignoring the high moral ground (after all 58,000 Americans and over 2 million Vietnamese were slaughtered in the war) of Ellsberg's actions, Shapiro gives equal weight to the anti-democratic and servile position of Ken Wainstein that Ellsberg was in Washington to challenge . Shapiro says, "Wainstein said leaks can cripple the government’s ability to function successfully and they are never justified...."

I don't romanticize that NPR was ever any great bastion of excellent journalism in the past, but it is really sad to compare this morning's condescending tone toward Ellsberg, to this stirring commentary by Ellsberg aired just three years ago on Morning Edition.

Open Thread - Friday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Tough Ship

Yesterday Nina Totenberg did a fairly good job of letting the lawyers for Jose Padilla lay out the evidence of the barbaric treatment that their client suffered at the hands of the US government while being held incommunicado for over two years in a US Navy brig. The details were chilling (tortured with absolute sensory deprivation, shackling, no bedding, no human contact, etc. for TWO full years). The report concluded with Totenberg's noting that a source within the government affirmed that the goal of the government was to render Padilla so mentally damaged that he could be remanded to a psychological prison - apparently forever. See this post at Daily Kos for more on Totenberg's report.

Also yesterday, the ACLU made news with the FBI reports on torture at Guantanamo. If you read the reports you'll find descriptions of the treatment meted out to prisoners there: prisoners shackled in fetal position to a bolt in the floor in their urine and feces for over 24 hours (in extreme cold and heat), a prisoner with his bearded head heavily duct taped, a prisoner with an Israeli flag draped on him, a Quran squatted on and straddled by an interrogator, guards and interrogators bragging about lap dancing on a prisoner, and baptizing a prisoner, etc.)

This constext made it grotesque, but in character for NPR (see posts of Sept. 9th and Sept. 7th) to interview Jackie Northam with her upbeat, admiring tone as she assessed conditions at Guantanamo. She says "Each commander has his own way of doing business and leaves his own imprint at Guantanamo" (I'll say!) Of the current war criminal running Guantanamo, Rear Adm. Harry Harris, she says "things have tightened up since he arrived last spring" and "he runs a tough ship down there." Regarding the hundreds of uncharged, un-indicted prisoners who have no legal rights to even challenge their detention, Northam says, "Adm. Harris told me the last time I was there that there are no medium-security terrorists, only maximum-security terrorists." She, of course, fails to mention that there is not one shred of independent, legitimate, verifiable evidence to support this Orwellian claim.

Who Created a Sensation?

"Honoring Rome's gods and goddesses was considered a civic obligation and, at times, a law."

When I heard that Keith Ellison was going to use a Quran during a swearing-in ceremony, my reaction was "Well, duh!" In a secular democratic state, with religious tolerance enshrined in its Constitution that elected officials must swear to defend, what other sacred text would a Muslim choose to swear on (except maybe the Hadith)?

So why on ATC tonight does Michele Norris say, "Newly elected Keith Ellison created a sensation last month when he announced that he planned to take the oath of office on the Quran." Ellison didn't "create" the sensation; a bigoted rightwing columnist and an ignorant, racist representative created the sensation. Media Matters early on pointed out how misleading it is when the media attributes the controversy to Ellison and not to the bigots who want to make worship of the Judeo-Christian Bible a litmus test for holding office (and even citizenship in the case of Goode). How is this firestorm of bigotry described by Norris? She says "His decision to use the Muslim holy book...drew criticism."

That is kind.

State Department Peaceniks

When it comes to the Middle East, here is what we get from NPR :

• "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has pledged new efforts toward Arab-Israeli peace…but US officials have long complained that Israel has no partner for peace..." (Michele Norris)
• "The US considers Hamas a terrorist organization…the US ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, told reporters at the State Department recently that Hamas has been busy arming itself..." (Michele Kelemen)
• "a State Department official says for now the US is gently pushing Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to continue making overtures, to Palestinian leader Abbas, and to take confidence building steps..." (Michele Kelemen)

NPR is "covering" the US policy of arming Fatah (see earlier post) in the apparent US-Israeli effort to bring the latest rule by civil war strategy to Palestine. Sadly, for criticism of this policy, where does NPR turn? To "former US consul general in Jerusalem," Edward Abbington and "a former State Department official with a long record in Middle East peacemaking," Aaron David Miller! That's it. No official from Hamas. No outspoken critic of the overall US-Israeli policy, no one from the Israeli Peace and Justice movements. Aaron David Miller seems like a decent guy, and it's fine to get his viewpoint, and Abbington is an employee of Mahmoud Abbas and has lobbied for the Palestinian authority so he's a worth hearing from--BUT what a tiny, narrow, pathetic range of opinion--and all framed within the basic premise that the guiding principle of US foreign policy in Palestine is to seek a just peace.

One shouldn't be surprised, considering that even an insider like former President Carter can't get a hearing on NPR news due to the fact that he has ever so slightly lifted the curtain on the US-Israel government policy of carving up Palestine, maintaining the biggest illegal settlements, and relegating Palestinians to a permanent second class status.

Open Thread - Wednesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Skirting the Issue

This morning NPR does something that drives me nuts. They take on an issue that I don't know a lot about, and then they present it in a way that makes me think I'm being played a fool.

I'm not very well informed about the Medicare Drug Prescription Benefit, but I do know that I really hate the health care system in the US. I know that I hate paying $700 a month to get crummy health insurance for myself and my family - and having my employer pay $375 more a month into a plan so that an insurance company can turn a profit. I know I hate seeing senior citizens have to sweat over which one of forty for-profit insurance companies they want to sign up for to cover their drug costs instead of having ONE government plan that covers everyone!

So this morning Renee Montagne talks to David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal so they can tell us how GREAT the Medicare Drug Prescription Benefit plan is and how successful it is. Montagne begins the show telling us, "It remains controversial, but it’s turning out better than some of its toughest critics warned." Wessel's main input is that a study from J.D. Powers shows that most people in the plan are satisfied with it (in fact "45% were delighted").

Now this is interesting to me. I recall hearing that the main, substantive criticism of the benefit plan is that it was virtually written by the health care/pharmaceutical lobby and that it was an overly expensive program because so much of the funds for the program ended up back in the insurance and drug company coffers (this was Hightower's contention this past summer). But instead of discussing these meaningful points, NPR presents us with a popularity poll that is supposed to convince us how successful the plan is. Especially galling is the fact that David Wessel knows the fallacious nature of this argument. Back in September he pointed out that consumer satisfaction with their health plans had no correlation whatsoever to the actual quality and effectiveness of their plans, and yet here he is making exactly that argument regarding the Medicare Drug Benefit - very sneaky!

There's nothing wrong with NPR giving some coverage to the J.D. Powers study - it is interesting, but clearly their agenda is to spin this one study (with a little help from the Wall Street Journal) into a glowing report on the scam of the Medicare Drug Benefit Program. If you want to find out more about the problems with the plan, you might want to look at this Public Citizen site, or you might want to see how a scuzzy insurer like Humana, Inc. is currently gouging the seniors they were able to corral into their plan using an initial low premium lure. I don't think those folks are going to be "delighted."

Non Sequitur

Put yourself in this situation: You are interviewing the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq and you ask, "Would your son’s death...weigh on you less if you...believed that things were going well?" The father answers, "No (long pause). I would say if they were going well, well that’s a difficult question, I would say no, it wouldn’t weigh on me less because I never believed that this was a necessary war."

What would a reasonable follow-up comment or question be?

• "Did your son know how you felt?"
• "You never felt that this war was necessary?"
• "So how did you handle it when he was called up?"
• "I'm so sorry, that must make your loss even more terrible."

Today on Morning Edition Renee Montagne found herself in exactly this situation. And her next question was, "What mementos do you have of your son?"

MEMENTOS! For God's sake, the poor man has just mentioned that his son died in a war that he believes was UNNECESSARY and all Renee Montagne can ask about are mementos. I was floored. Either Montagne is a dithering automaton or the sound editors (censors) decided that we shouldn't be exposed to any more unpatriotic ideas. Whatever the case, it was a bizarre moment. Fortunately, NPR at least did run the piece, which allowed us to hear the name of the organization that the parents started, Families of the Fallen for Change. Also, by searching the father's name, listeners can find this very moving essay by Paul Schroeder which fleshes out his comments about the war.

The Pardon - A Kid's Perspective

On September 8, 1974, I was 11 years old and was just beginning the 7th grade. My father was an ardent Nixon supporter and defender of the Vietnam War, and my mother one of Nixon's "silent majority" supporters. I was old enough to know that the past summer's Watergate hearings were historically very important, and that I should be watching them - but I found the narrative and details confusing and kind of boring (after all it was summer and I was 11). I was basically a conservative kid, growing up in a conservative Catholic household in the South. At the time I looked with awe upon all US presidents, thought Kissinger was a genius, and figured that our country had to be doing the right thing in Vietnam--in other words to say I was no Nixon critic is an understatement.

But, I do distinctly remember being stunned when the new President gave a full and complete pardon to Nixon on that fateful September day. I had been raised under the the naive American ideal that no one (not even the President) was above the law - and yet here was a man who was clearly being put, not only above the law, but out of the reach of the law. As time went on, it would only goad me even more that the pardon allowed Nixon to live off of the taxpayers on a generous pension that far exceeded the salaries my working parents ever attained, and allowed him to worm his way back into the public sphere as an "elder statesman" instead of the enemy of the Constitution that he clearly was. I'd say he made out pretty well with the help of his dear friend, Gerald Ford.

So now, more than 30 years later, I have to hear the Gerald Ford love-fest on NPR day after day. How many times have I heard them replay Ford's hypocritical statement, "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men." I've yet to hear one NPR reporter comment on the sad irony of that phrase "laws and not of men" - when Ford in fact turned that on its head just a month into his presidency by protecting the man from facing accountability of the laws.

Personally, I could care less about "hating Nixon" or the desire for revenge, but what irks me about NPR's slavish coverage of the legacy of Ford's pardon is its complete lack of consideration of how it has encouraged further presidential attacks on the Constitution--Reagan's shadowy shredding of checks and balances to fund his drug-running thugs known as the Contras, and of course George W. Bush's more overt assaults on basic Constitutional rules such as habeus corpus and unreasonable search and seizure protections. In my opinion Ford's pardon set a precedent of impunity that has emboldened Constitutional outlaws who gravitate to the White House, offering them the knowledge that they will never be held account for their high crimes and misdemeanors.

Oddly enough, one of the best articles I've found on the Ford pardon is in Slate which co-produces Day to Day with NPR. So maybe NPR could bring on the author of the article, Timothy Noah, for a little corrective angle on the infamous Ford Pardon. But I doubt they will.

The Bells

If you've never read it, check out Poe's poem "The Bells." Before you subject yourself to Linda Wertheimer's banal bell tribute to Gerald Ford on today's Saturday Morning Edition, consider these lines from Poe's lovely work:

Hear the tolling of the bells,
Iron bells!
What a world of solemn thought their monody compels!
In the silence of the night
How we shiver with affright
At the melancholy menace of their tone!

Or better still listen to Phil Ochs fine rendition of the poem (it's free).

Now gear yourself up for the Wertheimer's minutiea of how the bells will ring at the National Cathedral for Gerald Ford's funeral. You'll learn how the biggest bell will ring slowly 38 times for the 38th President, how there will be a muffled bell ringing where the bells will have their clappers wrapped in leather "to soften the strike and signal that this is a somber and important occasion." The details and the weepy emotionalism are excruciating. Linda tells us that on Tuesday she'll listen to the funeral on the radio ("maybe sneak a peak at TV"!) - but she'll "also step out on [her] back porch and listen to the bells mourning his death and marking his life."

I'd like to recommend that she do a little compassion exercise while she's worshiping deceased Dear Leader. She could imagine that the great, big bell ringing just once a minute for each of the 250,000 East Timorese that Gerald Ford helped to wipe off the face of the earth. That minimal tribute would take 4167 hours or 174 days. I guess that would be asking a lot of any sane person, so how about just one peal each second. That would only take about 70 hours, or not quite three days. Or she could - like NPR - just figure that those people's lives not only don't merit a ringing of bells, but aren't even worth mentioning.

Nukes and Newborns

Senior NPR analyst Dan Schorr was on a roll today. Summing up the past year he offers, "I think one can say about the year 2006, it was the year when the era of non-proliferation ended. All these years the United States, in company with others, has been trying very hard to hold the line, no more, no more…that era is over." Dan might want to get on the phone and try to talk to Mordechai Vanunu, he might have a slightly different idea of when non-proliferation ended. (But to do that would break the NPR taboo of ever holding Israel to account for its rogue-state behavior. Or perhaps Schorr considers the US plans for mini-nukes to be part of "holding the line."

From this nonsense Schorr jumps on the "Birth Pangs" wagon of Middle East analysis. Here's his razor sharp insights regarding the spread of Islamist movements: "We have this kind of revolution of the Islamists which are trying to introduce Koran all over the world and everywhere and to some extent they are at least successful in killing infant democracy..." Whoaa Dan! Killing infant democracy? Oh yea, like the little baby in Lebanon that the US and Israel tried to nurse with a million cluster bomblets this past summer!

Shoveling Shuster

This morning's piece on the "history" of Saddam Hussein presented by Mike Shuster is a dishonest charade of journalism - but as is often the case on NPR - not without a few choice bits of unintended irony (For instance, Shuster might as well be describing US foreign policy instead of Saddam Hussein's life when he says it "was permeated by violence – in wars, in coups successful and unsuccessful, in assassination, treachery and terrorism.")

NPR's audacity in broadcasting this misinformation is something to behold. Shuster mentions Hussein's attempt to assassinate Iraqi leader Qasim in 1959, but doesn't mention the CIA's active role in the affair. He talks about Hussein not being a "household" word until Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, but he doesn't mention is that Hussein was a much-favored household word in Reagan-Bush administrations that were very supportive of the dictator (and his lethal chemistry) throughout the 1980s. Shuster also fails to mention US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie's green light given to Hussein for his "blitzkrieg" invasion of Kuwait. Shuster describes the inhuman post-Gulf War UN sanctions with their death toll of half a million Iraqi children (which even Madeline Albright endorsed and did not dispute) as nothing but "an international propaganda struggle." Shuster even has the gall to try and justify the Bush-Cheney campaign of lies leading to the US invasion of Iraq by blaming it on Hussein's intransigence.

For a remarkable contrast let me highly recommend Juan Cole's post today on Informed Comment that lays out a readable, documented, and cogent history of the US-Hussein dictatorship and the amazing slide show by Eric Blumrich at Bushflash.com (this link was also highlighted by Juan Cole).

Bedtime Stories

NPR joins in the cover-up of the US (and British) role in the creation and support of now-executed dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Under the premise of debating whether networks should air the videotaped execution of Hussein, ATC brings on David Folkenflik who narrates the following fairy tale: "Saddam Hussein is an unusually familiar dictator for American viewers. The US has led two wars against him and he’s been interviewed by CBS and CNN several times over the years. When US forces took Baghdad, they created a powerful symbol for television viewers by toppling his statue…and then US troops found his spider hole hideout…after Saddam’s capture his dental exam was videotaped and shown on American networks. His trial was televised, including his repeated outbursts, and now his death is about to be chronicled."

"Unusually familiar dictator"--I'll say! "Powerful symbol for television" (i.e. staged propaganda). "Dental exam was videotaped" (Geneva Convention violation). "His trial was televised" (kangaroo court). Goodnight kids, sleep tight.

If you look for any substantive coverage from NPR news about US support for Hussein's dictatorship, you will find nothing. If you search all of NPR you will find one puny report on Day to Day with all the information provided by Mike Shuster.

Mojo Economics

This morning NPR cheers about how great Wall Street is. First Jim Zarroli tells us "If nothing else 2006 will be remembered as the year when the stock market regained its mojo, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average finally broke out of its post 9/11 stupor and began setting records again. On Wall Street these days there is optimism to spare."

Then Renee Montagne follows with a piece to remind us that "the impact of that stock market mojo that Jim just mentioned is champagne corks popping well ahead of New Year’s Eve." Montagne then brings on yet another right-wing analyst, James Glassman of the far right American Enterprise Institute (an NPR favorite), the National Review, and the rightist-freee market web site TechCentralStation.com to talk about the bloated bonuses of investment company CEO's. Glassman states, "It would be nice if perhaps the people wouldn’t take so much money and distribute it back to the shareholders or more back to the employees, but 'Hey this is Wall Street.'"

So for those of you who with jobs who worry about health insurance premiums eating up any salary increases you might have, for those of you with no health insurance, for those of you with jobs that don't pay a decent wage, for those of you with no jobs, and for those of you concerned about the squandering of our national wealth on war--calm down, and remember "Hey, this is Wall Street!"

Gradstein Plugs the "Right" Policy

Far right, or extreme right might be a more apt description for the US-Israeli policy of stoking civil war in Palestine, a policy that Linda Gradstein euphemistically describes as an Israeli government decision "to strengthen Abbas as he moves to challenge the ruling Hamas movement." It is frightening to hear how blandly Gradstein notes that Israel is funneling weapons (2000 AK-47s and 2,000,000 rounds of ammunition) to Fatah, and then has the gall to conclude that the talks between Olmert and Abbas that produced this lethal Christmas present "is just part of a flurry of diplomatic activity that raised hopes for renewal of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks." Raised whose hopes? The hopes of the compromised and antidemocratic Abbas? Where is any evidence of Palestinian hopes?

This sadly truncated reporting is nothing new and not surprising from the ethically compromised Gradstein. It also fits with NPR's pattern of focusing on extremism of Palestinians (such as Hamas' anti-Semitic charter), while ignoring the brutality of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and the extremism of Israeli leaders (such as Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman) and parties (e.g. Kadima's platform declaring that "the Jewish people have a national and historic right to the Land of Israel in its entirety " or Likud's which states, "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river" i.e. the West Bank!)

From NPR's coverage, listeners get a lopsided impression that Israel is the legitimate, moderate, restrained, and ready to compromise "partner for peace" that is faced with intransigence and extremism from the Palestinian side. If NPR's coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict were more fair and thorough listeners would be shocked at how provocative and one-sided the US position is in the conflict and how the continual claim by the US and Israel that you can't negotiate with extremists is clearly hypocritical and false--of course you can. It is through negotiations, compromise, verification mechanisms, third party mediation, and concrete actions that extremists (on all sides) will modify their positions.

Compare and Contrast

NPR is rightly giving a lot of coverage to the continuing horror of genocide and warfare in Darfur. Now imagine if the slaughter in Darfur led by the Sudanese government had been given the go-ahead by a sitting US President, and imagine that the US was continuing to supply the Sudanese and the Janjaweed with the weapons they were using. You'd hope that when that President died, NPR would give significant coverage of such vile behavior.

Today offers a comparable situation. By any comparison, the Indonesian genocide against East Timor was as grievous as the situation in Darfur. At the time, President Gerald Ford was an active participant in launching the genocidal invasion of East Timor by Indonesia in 1975 and his administration continued to arm and support the Indonesians. In addition to that disgrace, Ford contributed to the horrors in Chile, Argentina, and Angola. That is the history, but on NPR's eulogies for President Ford you won't hear one word about it. Here's what was aired this morning:

• "...he successfully led the country through a difficult period." (Renee Montagne)
• "...a man whose calm and straightforward demeanor helped steer the nation through some turbulent times." (Pam Fessler)
• "Every American young and old owes [Ford] a heartfelt thanks." (from the 2000 Republican Convention)
• "Did he in fact help heal the nation?" (Renee Montagne) and John Greene answers "There’s no question that the country believed he helped heal it."

NPR neglected to mention the Ford - East Timor connection last month, and today continues this whitewashed history. Listeners do have other options, especially Democracy Now! which had much fuller coverage this morning of the Ford legacy.