For More, ‘I Told You So.’
As if the prove the now well-accepted fact that the Fourth Estate failed in its duties prior to the start of the Iraqi War and through out the Bush Administration, Scott McClellan, former press secretary, completely denounces his former bosses.
"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq," the former spokesman writes. "The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."
-Bush's Former Spokesman Scorches White House with Tell All Memoir | MediaCulture | AlterNet
The more that comes out, the more it becomes obvious what the failure of the press means. High level government officials broke the law. They've lied (hey, look at that I used the 'L' word) and not been held accountable. Furthermore, no one's held the press accountable.
Come to think of that… who is the press answerable to? What's the check/balance for them? The people?
I'll leave this at "food for thought" before it becomes a rant.
Update:
The press is giving this story a fantastic spin.
The media has decided to cover this story, by getting a reaction from the ... White House. I guess when in doubt, turn to the administration to see what they have to say.
Coverage could have swayed toward other former-administration insiders who have also publicly talked about the administration's lies, but instead the media went with interviews from administration officials who said McClellan is "misguided for him to make these kind of broad accusations and draw these big conclusions about the president."
Here's a link to the NY Times more balanced coverage.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Did Happen to That War?
Ashley Gilbertson, a freelance photographer who has covered the war for Newsweek, Time and The New York Times and has written about covering the conflict in a book called “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot,” will be going back to Iraq in June. It will be his sixth time there, temperatures will range up to 130 degrees, and each time he has gone back there have been new restrictions.
“Many of my colleagues have turned away from the story because it has gotten to the point where they feel they just aren’t going to get anything useful, which I completely understand,” he said, adding that nonetheless, when the surge ends this summer, he wants to be there to chronicle what follows.
-The Media Equation - The Wars We Choose to Ignore - NYTimes.com
David Carr, for The New York Times, wrote this excellent piece about the abysmal state of press coverage of the war in Iraq. Weaving in some fantastic personal reminders that the War is indeed still going on, Carr reminds the rest of Americans that on Memorial Day we ought to think long and hard about "a war that had cost thousands of lives and over $1 trillion" all the while loosing "news salience."
According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index, coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has slipped to 3 percent of all American print and broadcast news as of last week, falling from 25 percent as recently as last September.
“Ironically, the success of the surge and a reduction in violence has led to a reduction in coverage,” said Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. “There is evidence that people have made up their minds about this war, and other stories — like the economy and the election — have come along and sucked up all the oxygen.”
This, is of course, just another example of the poor state of the Fourth Estate in this country. Carr is far from the first person to voice this concern and is probably not the most eloquent to do so, but the point still stands: the news media needs to do their job. It needs to report on the government and the war. Ratings, which are nothing more than poll results, ought to come secondary to the primary purpose of the news industry - to give news to the people. Yes, the media does in fact have a higher moral obligation that it is required to fulfill.
Furthermore, I don't buy the argument that there is nothing happening and therefore nothing to report. We manage to fill the airwaves with 24 hours of 'news' occurring in this country. Surely there is just as many stories to be told in not one, but two war zones!?
If the government is restricting access, then get around them. That's the job of the Fourth Estate: to uncover the things the government is trying to hide.
No doubt, reporting in a war zone in dangerous. Especially in the Middle East where kidnapping journalists has become a standard practice. Undoubtedly, having protection of US troops is a huge comfort and an increase in safety.
No trip outside the Green Zone is remotely safe. The enemy lurks everywhere among the population. Attackers show no mercy for innocent bystanders, who commonly outnumber intended targets. Each mission carries the threat of roadside bombs, suicide attacks by explosives-packed cars and trucks, and ambushes by insurgents.
-The Deadly Game of Private Security - The New York Times
Yet, I have to wonder if the press can't resort to the same tactics that the US military is resorting to – private military contractors. Surely someone can figure out how to not be as reliant (or complacent) as the press apparently is on the US government to tell them what to cover and where they can cover it from.
As I write this (22:31 PST) here are what some of the top news websites have on their front pages:
| CNN | FOX | NYT | WaPo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead: China quake | Lead: Mars lander | Lead: Midwest storms | Lead: China aftershock |
| Nothing on Iraq or Afghanistan | Nothing on Iraq or Afghanistan | 2 articles about Iraq, both small and buried | 3 tertiary articles (fairly prominent) about related issues, 1 buried link |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Shocking. The broadcast media has nothing about the war, while the print media carries a few stories.
Pakistan: Great US Ally?
Maulvi Omar, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, said his group had demanded Mohammad's release in discussions with the government.
"We hope the government will take more such confidence-building measures," he said.
-Pro-Taliban Leader Released by Pakistan - washingtonpost.com
So much for not negotiating with terrorists: the Pakistani government strikes again. First they ask us not to cross their borders – they will take care of their terrorist problem on their own thank you very much.
Well, looks like their way of taking care of it, is to release prisoner in exchange for talks. I understand that Pakistan doesn't want the US "meddling" in what are admittedly, their affairs, but this is just another problem that the US has and cannot control.
[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] added that Bush needs to tell the American people how keeping 140,000 troops in Iraq will help reduce the threat the nation faces because the U.S. military is bogged down in Iraq, what conditions will be needed for further troop withdrawals beyond July and how much longer the threat from extremists hiding along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border will be allowed to "grow because our resource commitment in Iraq makes is impossible to respond adequately."
Curious How Much of a Mess Iraq Is?
U.S. and Iraqi troops clamped down on Sadr City after fighting spread and attacks against the Green Zone intensified in the wake of the offensive. Four Americans were killed in near daily shelling.
Iranian Ambassador Denounces U.S. - TIME
This TIME article does a pretty good job showing how much of a mess Iraq is right now. The Iraqi army is attempting to be effective, but they still rely heavily on the US and the UK to do their job. Their job of course, is to try to maintain some sort of status quo between themselves and the insurgents. Iran is not helping matters at all, with their ambassador calling for the end of bloodshed – but only for those on his side. US soldiers continue to die without accomplishing their mission. And, concrete walls are still being constructed in an effort to secure the green zone.
Right. It's been said before, but: "mission accomplished." Right.
Iraq: The Ten Commandments | Salon
Commandment I Thou shalt not launch preventive wars.
Commandment II Do not exaggerate the threat posed by terrorism.
Commandment III Dry up the terrorist swamp.
Commandment IV Recognize that not all terrorists are the same.
Commandment V Reject the idea of "a clash of civilizations."
Commandment VI Do not allow neoconservatives anywhere near Middle East policy.
Commandment VII Talk to Iran.
Commandment VIII Make resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis our top foreign-policy priority.
Commandment IX Get the media to grow a spine.
Commandment X Grow up and join the world.
Iraq: The ten commandments | Salon
That should give you a pretty good idea what the article is about. The intro is way lefty and liberal – deciding that there is no choice but the withdraw from Iraq – even if McCain is elected. The meat of the article however, is fantastic. I highly reccomend the read. The list of ten things that needs to be done is quite good in my opinion.
CBS Journalist Freed in Iraqi Raid – New York Times
Continuing the trend of Media Outlets reporting the good news of other outlets, The New York times is reporting that a CBS journalist has been freed in a raid. Richard Butler is a photographer for CBS who was kidnapped two months ago. He was found bound and gagged in a house in Basara.
It's good to see any journalist, let alone a photographer, freed.
The Economics of the Iraqi War
This article, raises an interesting point that I'd like to extrapolate on. The article argues this:
The U.S. government has spent "more than half-a-trillion dollars" in support of the war effort, while that money could be spent on pressing needs in this country, he said.
Economy Sagging Due to Iraq War? - TIME
The article goes on to present poll results stating that 68% of the American people think that withdrawing from Iraq would help the countries economic troubles. The argument is fairly convincing. Especially considering that the US annual budget is now over $3 trillion, and the US GDP is now $13.13 trillion.
The point is well made that this war has had significant negative impact on the US economy. This is the point that I'd like to dwell on.
Historically, wars have been good for the US economy. They've sparked economic mobilization, technological advances, and increased economic output. Now, I'm not sure if this holds true for the Vietnam War (I suspect it does, but I cannot find anything to back it up). It certainly holds true for:
- The Revolutionary War
- The War of 1812
- The Civil War
- World War I
- World War II
- The Korean War
- The Gulf War
If it is to be believed that the Iraqi War has actually harmed the US economy, then I think that it is remarkable in that it is the first. It's also important examine why that has happened. These factors would be invaluable in assessing the worth, or even the status, of a war. One might even make a case for economics determining the 'correctness' of a war in the future.
My Neighborhood – Baghdad Bureau – Iraq From the Inside – New York Times Blog
We carried the injured to our own cars and hurried them to nearby hospitals. Others used wooden carriages to do the job of the ambulance. Some rescuers were using fire extinguishers and buckets filled with water to fight big fires, and others were wrapping the bodies of women, kids and men with blankets and kept shouting, “Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.”
My Neighborhood - Baghdad Bureau - Iraq From the Inside - New York Times Blog
This is another piece of phenomenal journalism from the NY Times. Written by an Iraqi journalist employed by the Times, this piece describes the resolve and willingness of the Iraqi people to deal with the problems of their country – namely terrorism.
The piece is short, and well written, very worth a read to get a quick insight into the mind of an Iraqi.
An Apathetic Iraq: The US Election
Says Alia Nasayif Jasim of the secular Iraqi National Accord bloc: "As Iraqis, from what we've seen of the bitterness in the American relationship with the Middle East, we don't think it matters who holds the presidency."
Moqtada al-Sadr, who demands an immediate end to the "American occupation," expressed more apathy than a particular preference for Clinton or Obama — both of whom have called for a timetable for exiting the country. "Before each election campaign, we hear a lot of promises and slogans, but the reality after the election is something else," says Sadrist Member of Parliament Fawze Akram, who said he doubted any candidate would actually follow through on a speedy troop withdrawal.
Tahsin al-Shiekhly, spokesman for the Baghdad Security Plan, which oversees police and military checkpoints in the capital, said … "The U.S. has a commitment to the people of Iraq. They liberated them and they have come to rebuild the country. Whoever the next President is — even Hillary Clinton — I don't think they will withdraw troops from Iraq," he said. But so long as that concern is met, Sheikhly said he would choose Obama. "I support Barack Obama because I think he is reliable. He is trying to fix the base of American society and trying to cleanse American foreign policy."
A Baghdad View of the US Election - TIME
What an overbearing sense of … apathy. It seems that Iraqis have accepted the fact that the US troops are necessary to prevent total chaos – they also don't see a way for the US to withdraw, it's just not in anyone's interests right now.
The fact Iraqis seem to think that it doesn't really matter who wins the next election is probably a sad, realistic truth. Us Americans all seem to think that who controls the presidency next will have a huge impact. – Indeed it will, but not on troop levels in Iraq. It probably won't really effect the short-term in Iraq at all.
What the Iraqis do fail to realize is that the next president of the US will have a drastic effect on the long-term US policy towards Iraq. In my opinion, they better hope it's a democrat and not a neo-con that gets the oval office next.
ABC News: Sources: ‘Principals’ OK’D Harsh Tactics
In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.
ABC News: Sources: 'Principals' OK'd Harsh Tactics
This new is a couple of days old, but … wow. I suppose this has been known/guessed at for a while now. But it's a pretty easy step here to say that 'senior administration officials' have committed a crime or two here. As a matter of fact, they certainly have.
The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
In Shiite Slums, Victory Must Be Won in the Alleys – New York Times
Here is what happens in the dream: Because I know a little Arabic, I somehow find myself a translator for the invaders, even as some of my Chicago buddies are in the alleys plotting against my employers. And each night when I walk home along my beloved Dearborn Street under the rusty elevated tracks and past the White Hen grocery store, I wonder what the guys poring over maps in their armored vehicles plan to accomplish against a few million South Siders fighting in their own alleys. That’s usually when I wake up.
In Shiite Slums, Victory Must Be Won in the Alleys - New York Times
An incredibly personal account by James Glanz, who tells the rather amazing story of Sadar City from a depressingly personal way that shows greater knowledge of the Iraqi political and cultural realm. It's a short and good read.
US Death Toll in Iraq Hits 4,000
The milestones for each 1,000 deaths — while an arbitrary marker — serve to rivet attention on the war and have come during a range of pivotal moments.
Five Years in Iraq
Been meaning to post this for a while now: Fantastic collection of photos from Iraq. Truly some of the best I've seen. Five Years in Iraq - Photo Essays - TIME
Iraqis Don’t Credit US for Safer Lives – TIME
Iraqis are finding their lives more hopeful but give the United States little credit for the improvement, an international media poll finds.
Instead, poll respondents credited the Iraqi government, police and army.
Iraqis Don't Credit US for Safer Lives - TIME
Huh. Appears the surge hasn't worked. Go go Bush! (yet again)
Back to Baghdad: Hell Reassessed – TIME
Great, short, article about the state of Iraq. Quick read that's very worth your time to get a sense of what Iraq looks like now.
Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link – washingtonpost.com
Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link - washingtonpost.com
What's really disappointing is that this only got a couple of inches in the Post. It deserves a full exposé in all the major papers. Preferably reporting a study done by journalists as opposed to a government group that is simply doing background research on itself.
