The Rag Blog

Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits – a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.” ~~ Hunter Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

02/12/07 “ICH” — — If the Bush administration and the US mainstream media are united on any one issue, it’s an absolute refusal to rock the political boat as they sail mercilessly through the seas of corporate profit on the good ship Terrorbush. For the most part, each group is an incurious lot — undead creatures who neither care, nor dare, to glance over the side of the ship at the bloated, swirling bodies in the blood-red water below. From the beginning, their mission has been to perform so fantastically against a backdrop of such violent, explosive madness on so many fronts that we watch hypnotically but do not see — listen intently but do not hear.

They are very good at what they do.

In the last 10 days, as 36 Americans were killed in Iraq, we were inundated with a variety of devastating news — all of which literally beg for broad, investigative reporting from those whom the late, great Molly Ivins laughingly referred to as “alert guardian watchdogs of democracy.” For example…

~~A bleak National Intelligence Estimate was released, which stated flatly that what is going on in Iraq is much worse than a civil war and there is little chance that Bush’s escalation of 20,000-50,000 troops will do anything but fuel the fire. The media’s initial interest quickly faded when Vice President Dick Cheney called the report “hogwash,” and announced that he and Bush had the power to do whatever they wanted, and neither the Congress nor the people could stop them.

~~Bush appointed Adm. William Fallon to head Central Command (CENTCOM) — a Navy man to run the ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Formerly with NATO as Assistant Chief of Staff, Plans and Policy for Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, Fallon has a history of high-tech war game tomfoolery that provokes the enemy to attack. With US carrier attack groups bumping into each other in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Iran, who you gonna call?

~~Nat Hentoff writes in the Village Voice that the giant aerospace Boeing is “supplying the CIA with the planes to transport the shackled, blindfolded, drugged passengers for interrogation in foreign torture chambers.” Hentoff credits The New Yorker’s Jane Meyer with breaking the Boeing story in October, wherein she quoted a former Jeppesen (Boeing subsidary) employee who was told by a top official, “We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights –you know, the torture flights…It certainly pays well. They” — the C.I.A — “spare no expense. They have absolutely no worry about costs. What they have to get done, they get done.”

~~The Pentagon’s Inspector General (IG) Report confirms what we have known for nearly five years — we were catapaulted into war with Iraq on a pack of malicious, treasonous lies dreamed up by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who were obviously following Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s order on 9-11 to “sweep it all up — things related or not” to justify an attack on Iraq.

. . .In testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Acting IG Thomas Gimble acknowledged, albeit in bewildering doublespeak, that Feith’s office had indeed “developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community, to senior decision-makers.” Gimble plowed on with an admission that Feith “was inappropriately performing intelligence activities of developing, producing and disseminating that should be performed by the intelligence community.”

. . .Given that more than 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered, more than 2 million families are broken and displaced, and 3,379 coalition troops (3,123 of them Americans) have been blown to bits, Gimble’s limp concession that what these creatures did in manipulating intelligence to go to war was neither “illegal or unauthorized” is almost as bizarre as the media refusing to investigate such criminal activity. Almost as bizarre as Wolfowitz’ grinning admission in Vanity Fair two months after the attack, “We settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.” Almost as bizarre as the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Ledeen, who boasted in 2002, “We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia. . . The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.”

The U.S. media is beneath contempt, and can never redeem itself for the damage it has wrought on this republic by its fawning allegience to a band of crooked, war-mongering fools. By sinking to reading scrubbed-clean White House press releases, by relinquishing all pretences of honesty, values and integrity in order to ingratiate itself to the ravenous corporate beast, its members are little more than “enablers” who cannot remember why they became journalists in the first place.

The roster of speakers for the UFPJ demonstration in Washington D.C. on January 27 speaks volumes. The key was not so much who was included but who was not. The list of speakers certainly had a lot of wonderful activists in the peace movement, but to a considerable degree it was a line-up of Democrats and movie stars.

Ralph Nader, who was in Washington that weekend, was pointedly not invited to speak. On Saturday night Nader was reportedly inquiring of other independents just who had been invited to speak among their growing number. Imagine that; the only antiwar candidate in the 2004 elections was not an invited speaker, even though he and Cindy Sheehan drew tremendous applause at the last mass rally in 2005 (Notice how these rallies occur now only in only non-election years, nicely tailored to get activists to work for Dems, but not to pressure the Dems to take a strong anti-war stand.) The non-invitation removed Nader from the movement every bit as effectively as the censors armed with air brushes removed dissidents in the “socialist” Czech republic chronicled by Milan Kundera. Nor was there anyone who spoke as a representative of the Green Party, even though at least one speaker was in fact a Green and even though an informal survey showed an enormous number of people in the crowd were Greens or Green sympathizers. Yes, the Greens were “permitted” a feeder march but their only organized presence on the Mall that this writer could find was a small card table with three women staffing it.

So I have spent a good deal of this evening reading the accounts of the “highly” secretive, “ultra-classified” and “on monumental background” Iran briefing that the White House orchestrated today, just in time for Monday’s breaking news. What is quite clear is that US corporate press has become an extension of the White House public relations department.

Under what circumstances would the following criteria for a news story ever be considered “journalism:”

1). Reporters met with experts and analysts who would not provide their names, background, or any identifying information – even off the record. There is no way to know who these unnamed experts were, what made them experts, or anything that could be used to confirm or debunk their allegations. In other words, the sources were not vetted and unknown.

2). The allegations that Iran was responsible for the downing of US helicopter in Iraq by using advanced weapons were based on a set of photographs of unknown origin, date, time, or any other contextual information that could be confirmed or debunked. In other words, the facts of the story are unsupportable and cannot be in any way explored.

3). The White House led officials present at the briefing would not give their names either, despite this presentation being cleared by the White House. In other words, despite this not being a leak, no one would stand by the story.

4). The alleged intelligence was put together like a presentation one would find at a new product roll out, planned weeks in advance even. Yet the reason given for providing this information to the press is concern for US troops on the ground in Iraq. Obviously something is wrong with either the motive (when one works a story, one wants to understand motive for informaton provided). The motive, as claimed, is concern for the troops – but if there was concern for the troops, why did this presentation require weeks of planning? If there was enough evidence to support a full blown briefing such as this, then instead of planning for a public relations extravaganza, one would think that the White House might be doing something more important – for example, holding emergency briefings for Congress.

5). White House officials, however, caution that this information cannot be independently verified.

So, we have source of unknown credentials, allegations based on evidence that cannot be vetted or properly investigated, officials who despite being authorized to present this information to the press are unwilling to go on the record, and a motive for providing this information that appears to be disingenuous. What then, I ask, makes this news? Furthermore, what makes this front page material with titles ranging from the mild “Iran arming insurgents sources say” to the absurd “Iran killing US soldiers in Iraq?”

Pentagon carelessness fabricating bogus “evidence” against Iran is really quite stupendous. As I wrote here yesterday, the 81mm mortar shell offered up to the complaisant corporate media as “evidence” Iran is supplying weaponry to the Shi’a of Iraq is an obvious ruse, as the date on the proffered shell does not follow the Muslim calendar and other markings are in English when it only makes sense they would appear in Persian script.

But it gets worse.

As a recent email points out, Iran does not manufacture 81mm mortar shells. According to a report offered by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, connected to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the neocon Brookings Institute, the smallest mortar produced by Iran is the 107mm M-30. This information is included in the JCSS’s “Middle East Military Balance,” updated last February. It can be read in this PDF file on page 15. According to JCSS, “The Middle East Military Balance has been the most authoritative source on Middle Eastern Armies since 1983.” It is quite fortunate for us the hubris-filled neocons care not to double check their engineered lies—erroneously described as a “machining process”—before unleashing them on an unwitting public.

As Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told the Associated Press, the “United States has a long history in fabricating evidence,” an undisputed fact more than underscored by the lead-up to the Iraq invasion when the neocons claimed Iraqi weather balloon trailers doubled as biological weapon labs and clumsily recycled a student’s homework as evidence Saddam was dabbling in weapons of mass destruction.

Four years ago in the press for the war with Iraq, the Bush administration maintained that the Iraqis had the technological, machining, and engineering capability to indigenously produce long range missiles, enrichment centrifuges, and nuclear weapons.

Yesterday, the Bush administration claimed that the Iraqis don’t have the machining capability to produce the moderately technical EFP’s they claim are coming from Iran.

During a heated debate in a class I teach on social justice, several US Marines who had done tours in Iraq told me that they had “sacrificed” by “serving” in Iraq so that I could enjoy the freedom to teach in the USA. Parroting their master’s slogan about “fighting over there so we don’t have to fight over here”, these students proudly proclaimed that they terrorized and killed defenseless Iraqis. They intimated that their Arab victims are nothing more to them than collateral damage, incidental to their receipt of some money and an education.

A room full of students listened as a US Marine told of the invasion of Baghdad and Falluja and how he killed innocent Iraqis at a check point. He called them “collateral damage” and said he had followed the “rules”. A Muslim-American student in front of him said “I could slap you but then you would kill me”. A young female Muslim student gasped “I am a freshman; I never thought to hear of this in a class. I feel sick, like I will pass out.”

I knew in that moment that this was what the future of teaching about justice would include: teaching war criminals who sit glaring at me with hatred for daring to speak the truth of their atrocities and who, if paid to, would disappear, torture and kill me. I wondered that night how long I really have in this so called “free” country to teach my students and to be with my children and grandchildren.

The American military and mercenary soldiers who “sacrificed” their lives did not do so for the teacher’s freedom to teach the truth about the so-called war on terror, or any of US history for that matter. They sacrificed their lives, limbs and sanity for money, some education and the thrills of the violence for which they are socially bred. Sacrificing for the “bling and booty” in Iraq or Afghanistan, The Philippines, Grenada, Central America, Mexico, Somalia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the other numerous wars and invasions spanning US history as an entity and beginning with their foundational practice of killing the Indians and stealing their land.

Many of the classes that I teach now include students who “served” in the US military and security corporations. There are also many students who intend to join the US military upon completion of a degree because with the degree they get a bigger “sign on” bonus of ten to fifty thousand dollars. Their position is supported by many of the student body, who, vegetating according to the American Plan, believe they should “support their troops”. The excuses that they give for joining or intending to join the US military terrorist training camps are first and foremost motivated by a desire for money. One student proudly said that he is willing to kill for money, a better standard of living and an education. Another student, who had done two tours of duty to the Empire in Iraq, justified killing and torture, citing the importance of staying on top as the world’s number one super power so that his family could have the highest standard of living and unlimited access to the world’s oil supplies.

Yet another soldier-student said that there would always be wars and someone had to do it. The”it” is killing, rape, and plunder for profit. Some of the soldier-students agreed that military terrorism was thrilling. Stopping and killing people at checkpoints in order to maintain a comfortable lifestyle in the USA was worth the risk of being killed or maimed. Little did they know that the very education they would kill for could include a course on social justice in which they would be compelled to examine their motives, beliefs and actions in an evil, illegal, immoral and unjust invasion and occupation of a people who never hurt or harmed them or any of their fellow citizens.

To be fair, in this week’s discussion in class there was some mention that some of the student’s intentions had been honorable at the time that they joined the military. They wanted to “help other people”. A few woman students who want to join the military commented that they would be working to “free and defend” people here and abroad. However, for the most part and by their own admission, personal financial gain was their main focus in signing on. Their bottom line was getting the money and their thrills by joining and belonging to the biggest terrorist organization in the world, the USA.

NAJAF, Iraq – New evidence is emerging on the ground of an Iranian hand in growing violence within Iraq, but not necessarily as the US claims Tehran is involved, that is, by providing arms to Shi’ite Muslim militants.

The massacre in Najaf last month indicates that Iran could be working through the Iraqi government, local leaders in Najaf say. The killing of 263 people in Najaf by Iraqi and US forces on January 29 provoked outrage and vows of revenge among residents in and around the sacred Shi’ite city in the south. The killings have deepened a split among Shi’ites.

Iran is predominantly Shi’ite, one of the two main groupings within Islam along with the Sunnis. Iraq has for the first time a Shi’ite-dominated government, comprising groups that have been openly supportive of Iran.

The people killed in Najaf were mostly Shi’ites from the Hawatim tribe that opposes the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq as well as the Da’wa Party. These two pro-Iranian groups control the local government in Najaf and the central government in Baghdad.

The Najaf attack has provoked strong reactions among members of the Hawatim tribe and among other Shi’ite groups who are not loyal to Iran – and who became the target in those killings.

An attack on a local tribal leader led to an assault on members of the tribe by US, British and Iraqi forces. The tribe was described by government officials as a “messianic cult”.

Abid Ali, who witnessed the Najaf fighting, said a procession of about 200 pilgrims from the Hawatim tribe had arrived in the Zarqa area near Najaf to celebrate the Ashura festival. After a confrontation over the procession, Iraqi soldiers at a checkpoint shot dead Hajj Sa’ad Sa’ad Nayif al-Hatemi, chief of the tribe, as he and his wife sat in their car. Members of the tribe then attacked the checkpoint to avenge the death of their chief.

MUNICH, Germany, Feb 11 (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned NATO on Sunday that failure in Iraq and the chaos likely to follow would hurt all the allies, regardless of whether they had opposed or supported the 2003 invasion.

“If the United States and our partners in Iraq fail and there is chaos in Iraq, every member of this alliance will feel the consequences,” Gates said at the Munich Security Conference, an annual gathering of world leaders.

“Chaos in Iraq … will result in further conflict in the Middle East and will result in more terrorism reaching out to touch all of us,” he said of U.S.-led attempts to put down an insurgency and end sectarian strife in Iraq.

“There may be great disagreement in the room on how we got to where we are, but the reality is, as of today, failure in Iraq will impact every country represented in this room.”

The invasion of Iraq divided NATO, with Britain, Italy and Spain among countries that supported it, and France and Germany leading opponents.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy reiterated Paris’s criticisms of the U.S.-led war, saying Washington had been guilty of “blindness” over both the objectives and conduct of the conflict.

Asked in a radio interview to react to Gates’s comments, he said: “I respond that in Iraq today what is at stake is by definition one thing only. Respect for Iraqi sovereignty.”

“As foreign occupying troops withdraw, there will be a positive movement, in the same proportion, towards a return to Iraqi sovereignty,” he told France’s Radio J.

Gates, in his first major public address since replacing Donald Rumsfeld in December, acknowledged in reply to questions that some U.S. actions had hurt the country’s reputation abroad.

The former CIA director cited the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq and the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay as examples.

“I don’t have any doubt that there is, in certain quarters, anti-American propaganda,” Gates said. “But I think we also have made some mistakes and have not presented our case as well as we might in many instances.”

GATES SEES NO NEW COLD WAR

But Gates slapped down suggestions that U.S. actions were leading to a new Cold War with Moscow. “There is no desire for a new Cold War with Russia and one is completely unnecessary,” he said.

Gates, who studied the Soviet Union and Russia as a career CIA analyst, dismissed as the blunt talk of an old spy accusations by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday that the United States sought to force its will on the world.

He rejected calls for the United States to charge or release all prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay base on Cuba.

“There is no question that most of us would like to close the detainee facility at Guantanamo,” he said. “But there are also people at Guantanamo frankly who should never be released, who are serious committed terrorists by their own admission.”

Gates said Europe must commit more troops and money to Afghanistan if NATO was to remain a potent military alliance. Failure to give the needed resources to win in Afghanistan would be a “mark of shame” for the world’s richest countries, he said.

But he also sought to ease tensions with his counterparts that some administration critics blame on Rumsfeld’s brusque style. Alluding to a 2003 comment by his predecessor that led to anger among some allies and accusations of U.S. arrogance, he said he saw no division of “old Europe versus new”.

Instead, he said the division was between those that did all they could to fulfill NATO’s commitments and those that did not.