Even PBS' The NewsHour had to cover the lies of the White House about the assault on our Consulate in Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9-11.
Being The NewsHour, they do a really bad job of covering it, of course.
Here is a sample:
MARGARET WARNER: The attacks that killed American Ambassador Chris Stevens and three colleagues in Benghazi was first described by U.S. officials as an eruption of anger at an anti-Islam film. The Obama administration has since reversed that appraisal and now calls it a well-coordinated terrorist attack.
But questions have mounted over the shifting assessments. And, today, two Republican congressmen, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa of California and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, leveled new allegations.
In a letter to Secretary of State Clinton, they charged Washington rejected multiple requests for security improvements at Benghazi mission.
They base their assertions on unidentified sources described as multiple U.S. federal government officials. The State Department spokeswoman said the secretary would respond in writing this very day.
The above? That is half the report.
Yes, that is how The NewsHour continues to cover for the president. Forced to include what is going on, they reduce it to a minor news item.
And they offered this discussion which is a waste of time as well. The questions Margaret Warner is asking should be asked of a CNN reporter -- like Elise Labott.
If I immediately grasped that, you better believe they realized it when they were planning the segment and wondering who to book.
It is a real shame that PBS has allowed their own standards to fall so low.
I knew it tipped towards corporations. I knew it was not the voice of the people. But the last four years have presented a NewsHour that has very little connection to news. I hope all of the people who felt anything was worth giving up to have Barack Obama as president are okay with the demise of PBS because I would not have wished it to give up all objectivity and standards if I had been asked. Not to have a president of my party, not for any reason. Presidents come and go -- I have seen dozens in my lifetime -- a real and functioning news media is needed forever in a democracy.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Tuesday,
October 2, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri blusters about
Turkish war planes, the US Defense Dept 'finds' money to pay for US
troops in Iraq, Jalal does a listening tour, and more.
Yesterday, Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) broke the following news,
"In its final act before leaving town earlier this month, Congress
passed a continuing resolution (CR) that failed to reauthorize the main
mission of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I), despite
Pentagon warnings that the move could force the military to withdraw
hundreds of U.S. troops who are still in Baghdad helping to develop the
Iraqi security forces and working with them on counterterrorism. The
authority for U.S. forces to train and assist the Iraqi security forces
expired Sunday." Never fear. When it comes to destruction, it will
always be paid for. Lolita C. Baldor (AP) reports
that the Defense Dept has announced it has the money to cover the costs
"in its temporary budget." Of course, it does. Of course. Kristina Wong (Washington Times) adds
that George Little, Pentagon spokesperson, declared the move was "a
temporary bridge while we seek a longer-term way ahead for [the Office
of Security Cooperation-Iraq] in the fiscal year 2013 National Defense
Authorization Act, which we expect to be taken up by Congress later
this year."
Some day the broadcast media
will cover what's going on. It may be a 100 years from now, but some
day they will. In the meantime, we're supposed to pretend it's not
taking place.
Iraq War veteran Mike Prysner is with March Forward! and he speaks with Press TV about Iraq (link is video and transcript):
Mike
Prysner: The whole strategy behind the US' so-called withdrawal of US
forces from Iraq was the ability to leave in its place forces that
would maintain and protect the interests of the US government, namely
US control over Iraq's resources and the dividing up of Iraq's oil
among various major British and US oil companies, and French and German
as well.
The Iraqi government exists today, and the Iraqi forces exist today to maintain the status quo, to maintain the new government that the United States felt worthy of sending to leadership.
The security in Washington means that the interests are secured, that US bases are secured, that US contracts are secured. And if anything threatens that, they want the Iraqi government to crush it with violence, to torture people, to attack demonstrations and so forth.
We should remember that if the Iraqi security forces are not to the task that the US has assigned for them -- we have to keep in mind that President Obama himself said when he was giving the speech celebrating the end of the Iraq war, he said very plainly that our commitment to Iraq has not ended.
The Iraqi government exists today, and the Iraqi forces exist today to maintain the status quo, to maintain the new government that the United States felt worthy of sending to leadership.
The security in Washington means that the interests are secured, that US bases are secured, that US contracts are secured. And if anything threatens that, they want the Iraqi government to crush it with violence, to torture people, to attack demonstrations and so forth.
We should remember that if the Iraqi security forces are not to the task that the US has assigned for them -- we have to keep in mind that President Obama himself said when he was giving the speech celebrating the end of the Iraq war, he said very plainly that our commitment to Iraq has not ended.
At Foreign Policy, Peter Feaver argues it's time to examine Iraq in terms of Barack. Apparently, Feaver wasn't bowled over by the foreign policy 'analysis' The NewsHour provided last week (as Ava and I pointed out,
PBS stacked the deck by inviting a reporter and an 'independent'
analyst who Tweeted insults about Mitt Romney before his appearance on The NewsHour).
I can agree with him on the issue of examining Barack's actions with
regards to Iraq. I don't agree with Feaver that Fred and Kimberly
Kagan should be listened to on Iraq because they've "earned the right
to a respectful hearing on" the topic. But I will agree that they
should be listened to since they are the immediate in-laws of State
Dept's spokesperson Victoria Nuland.
It's
always comical to watch the Cult of St. Barack huff and puff about the
neocons and grasp how ignorant the Cult is and how unaware they are of
just how many neocons populate Barack's administration. Victoria
Nuland, married to Robert Kagan) is one such neocon and she was Dick
Cheney's right hand during the planning of the Iraq War. Didn't stop
the administration from giving her a job -- a high profile one in
fact. So if she speaks for the State Dept, and she does, Peter Feaver,
there's the reason to listen to his sister-in-law Kimberly and
brother-in-law Fred Kagan. And for those who think she was working
with the State Dept when she helped Cheney, no. Just because the State
Dept has vanished her Bully Boy Bush days doesn't mean we have done the
same. From November 24, 2004:
Kagan's
wife works as Cheney's deputy national security adviser. That's Ms.
Nuland' s title. So in effect, Ms. Nuland's employed by "team B" --
she's apparently not working on team B's campaign, but she works for
team B. Potentially, Kagan has a vested interest in the outcome of the
2004 election.
As you may remember,
back then it was NPR covering for Nuland, erasing her from the scene
while letting Robert Kagan go on the air to explain what was wrong with
then presidential contender John Kerry -- explain what was wrong from
an 'independent' stand point because NPR didn't think the listeners had
a right to know the man ripping apart Kerry and praising Bush wasn't so
independent, that his wife was Dick Cheney's Deputy National Security
Adviser.
Dick Cheney. The name that still
sends shudders down the spines of many Democrats. But Barack let her
and a lot of other neocons into the administration.
Iraq needs to be evaluated. Don't express the press to rush to do that because evaluating requires facts and it's Iraq's Dar Addustour, and not NPR, that reported today on the New York Times article
mentioning that the US just sent a unit of Speical-Ops back into Iraq
and how there are negotiations between the White House and Iraq to
returns US troops to Iraq in larger number. Dar Addustour is referring to Tim Arango's report
from last week, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an
agreement that could result in the return of small units of American
soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi
government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special
Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on
counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
Meanwhile AFP reports
that Nouri's Baghdad-based government is calling for an end to the
treaty between Iraq and Turkey that currently allows Turkish war planes
to bomb northern Iraq (Turkey bombs what they say are suspected PKK
camps). Ali al-Dabbagh, Nouri's spokesperson, is quoted stating, "The
cabinet decided to reject the presence of any foreign bases or forces
on Iraqi land and to reject the entry of any foreign military forces
into Iraqi land." Ahlul Bayt News Agency continues
that al-Dabbagh declared that the government recommends Parliament
cancel any existing contract and refuse to extend any agreements. The Tehran Times adds,
"According to the Turkish parliament, the military is authorized to
conduct operations inside Iraq's airspace under the pretext of
targeting hideouts of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants. These
operations have intensified after the withdrawal of the United States
from Iraq, which is not yet capable of securing its airspace." AFP notes,
"A high-ranking Iraqi official said the decision was aimed at Turkish
military bases in the north Iraq province of Dohuk, one of the three
provinces that make up the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)" and
that, "Ties between Iraq and Turkey have been marred by a flurry of
disputes, including Ankara's refusal to extradite Iraqi Vice President
Tareq al-Hashemi, who has been sentenced to death in absentia by an
Iraqi court." Reuters reminds that, "The Baghdad government's power over Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region is limited." The announcement came as Al Jazeera reported,
"Turkish security forces have killed 12 Kurdish rebels in fighting,
including two women who attempted to infiltrate from neighbouring Iraq,
local security sources said."
Just yesterday, September was hailed as the most violent month in Iraq in two years, while today violence continues as does fear and silence. On fear, Alsumaria reports that in Basara accusations are being tossed around following the assassination last Thursday
of former Governor (2005 to 2009) Mohammed Misbah Waili with some
accusing a clan within the province and the clan accusing unnamed
foreign powers. On the silence, Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) reports
that Sunday's violence (at least 33 dead, at least 106 injured,
according to AFP's count) was met with silence and that no sympathy was
expressed or violence noted on the websites of Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani or Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi, that -- like the three politicians -- state TV channel
Iraqiya focused on football and ignored the violence, that the bulk of
the papers ignored the violence and the official government paper
al-Sabah waited until page four to mention the violence and then under
the headline "Bagdad Operations [Command] announces foiling an
attempted terrorist plot with eight car bombs." Al Rafidyan carries the AFP report here. Today, Alsumaria reports
the corpses of 3 men wearing fire fighter uniforms were found in
Baghdad and that a Baquba roadside bombing left 2 people injured, an
armed attack in Kirkuk that left 1 street cleaner and two other people
injured, a Falluja roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police
officer and left another person injured, 2 corpses were discovered in
Tirkt. In addition, Alsumaria reports a Kirkuk armed attack which left 2 people dead.
On the subject of Kirkuk, All Iraq News reports that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq's Martin Kobler's deputy Gyorgy Busztin met to discuss the issue of elections in disputed Kirkuk. Fearing that no law will be passed in time for provincial elections, al-Nujaifi stated that they will leave it to the three presidencies (President of Iraq Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and al-Nujaifi) to resolve the issue.Considering the record for political resolutions in Iraq, that seems more than a bit optimistic.
Optimism is what Jalal Talabani seems full of currently as he works Baghdad. Al Mada reports Talabani continues meeting with the leaders of various poltical partices, blocs and forces -- yesterday with the head of the National Alliance Ibrahim al-Jaafari and the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Ammar al-Hakim. Jalal is on a listening tour. Which is fitting since his ceremonial post comes with few actual powers.
All Iraq News notes that Ammar al-Hakim talked about the need for a national dialogue when he met with Talabani. Reallly? Then maybe al-Hakim should have supported the call for a National Conference. Remember that? December 21st, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and President Jalal Talabani were both calling for a National Conference. Nouri stalled it and circumvented it. He couldn't have done that on his own. Little Buddy Ammar helped him a great deal. All Iraq News reports MP Mohammad Iqbal is calling on Talabani to pressure the blocs to modifty their course. Nice suggestiong but when has Talabani ever had the spine to pressure anyone?
It didn't have to be that way. As NPR's Deborah Amos observed in the spring of 2010, speaking at Harvard's Shorenstein Center,
the ground had been changing in Iraq in 2009 and early 2010 with a move
towards secular parties. Amos is the author of one of the finest books
on the Iraq War, Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East.
Debora
Amos: It was quite possible as you looked at the new configuration
that there would be a move away from the dominance of the Shi'ite
parties. That there would be some reconciliation. They [Iranian
regime] were not happy about that and they have been very public about
the fact that they want no Ba'athists -- [Iranian President Mahmoud]
Ahmadinejad said this in a public speech, no Ba'athists will ever run
Iraq again. They clearly backed the Shi'ite religious parties and the
politics of the country was shifting a bit. In the middle of all of
this arise one of the most remarkable politicians in Iraq and he's
played all kinds of roles in that country including a spoiler. And he
dropped a political bombshell into the political process of that
country and this was in January when Ahmed Chalabi's protege Ali Faisal
al-Lami who is the executive director of the de-Ba'athification
Commission, they blacklisted 500 candidates and they disqualified them
by accusing them of either being Ba'athists or having links to the
Ba'athist Party. Not every name of the 500 was Sunnis but the attack
was clearly against these new, secular, mixed parties. That's where
most of the names came from. But there were enough Sunnis that this
aggrieved minority felt what they were looking at was a witch hunt.
And that's the reaction that you're seeing now -- that they feel like
they're being targeted. What's interesting is both Chalabi and al-Lami
are candidates themselves and they were running on the Shi'ite Islamist
Party. In talking to analysts about Iraq, what they say is it was a
move worthy of Karl Rove because it was both brilliant and cynical at
the same time. And what is showed was a complete understanding of the
weaknesses of Iraq's political culture. In addition, it took
Washington completely by surprise. They never saw it coming. And so
there reactions have been slow and ineffective. And as the political
theater has played out in Iraq, this election which should have been
about corruption, about lack of services, about security, about the
role of Iran, about the drawdown of American troops which -- all combat
troops are to be withdrawn by August of 2010 -- what this election has
become about what I said: Warning wind. This could be the strategey --
this anti Ba'athist, 'Ba'athists are under the bed, Ba'athists are
coming to get you' -- this could be the comeback strategy for the
Shi'ite Islamist parties who have nothing to show in terms of services
and governance but can certainly win on the votes of fear. It is a
complete reversal from where the country was just a year ago. And it
shows how weak the political culture is that it could take an event
like banning 500 political candidates to turn this whole election into
a referendum on Ba'athists -- which was essentially rendered defunked
in 2003. It may propel these parties back into office but it is as
likely to put off political reconciliation because we are as far away
from that today as we were in 2007.
It
could have been so different. Political reconciliation still hasn't
taken place. It could have been so difficult. Amos says the White
House was taken by surprise. Again, it's past time that this
administration's actions with regards to Iraq were analyzed.
Why
was Iraq ignored? Why wasn't the White House able to provide Iraq with
a stable ambassador? Barack's been in the White House less than four
years and he's had four nominees for Ambassador to Iraq -- three were
confirmed (Chris Hill, James Jeffery and most recently Robert S.
Beecroft) and one withdrew (Brett McGurk).
Iraq
needed stability. Why was the White House unable to provide that? The
White House couldn't even provide an ambassador who could serve out a
four year term. Why did the White House refuse to back the Iraqi
people who voted Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya first in the 2010 parliamentary
elections, not Nouri's State of Law? Why didn't the White House show
respect for rule of law, for democracy and for free and fair elections?
Last week, John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (The Daily Beast) posted:
Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
It would
be really great if the press could do their job and ask the questions
that need to be asked but we really don't have a free and fair press in
the United States. We have a press that's encouraged to play favorites
instead of encouraged to do their jobs which is how for two years they
avoided asking the question of how, if the US government wanted to
bring democracy to Iraq, the White House could ignore the Iraqis who
went to the polls, risked violence to register their vote because they
believed the lies of the US government. They went to the polls, they
voted and they found their votes overturned by the US government.
A real press, a functioning press, would've asked questions. No one did. Don't you find that strange?
Gail
Collins can act like a trashy whore writing about the Romney family dog
repeatedly in one wasted column after another, but she can't ask the
needed questions? She's a whore who works the street her pimp tossed
her out on, don't mistake her for a journalist.
It's
amazing that a unibrowed professional nutcase like Gail Collins is
repeatedly allowed to waste the country's time telling and retelling
the story of the dog while ignoring the Iraqi people and their will was
overturned, how democracy was subverted and how that happened not in
spite of but because of the White House.
Yeah,
Barack's got a lot of questions to answer but, no, they won't ask the
questions in the pretense that passes for a free and fair media in the
United States.
Don't expect
the questions at any of the faux debates this month either. Nellie
Bailey and Glen Ford are the hosts of the weekly Black Agenda Radio (here for this week's broadcast) which airs on Progressive Radio Network each Monday from 11:00 am to noon EST. This week, Black Agenda Report's Bruce Dixon addressed the so-called presidential debates. Excerpt:
Bruce
Dixon: The so-called Presidential Debate Commission is a private
corporation founded by leaders of the two corporate parties, who choose
the format, the location, the moderators and the questions, and who
explicitly draw up the rules to exclude candidates and parties other
than Republicans and Democrats. Although the broadcast airwaves have
existed longer than the sun and cable networks everywhere run beneath
the public roads and streets, US law lets private corporations
determine on their own what political messages reach the population by
controlling news and demanding large sums of money for a few seconds of
commercials. These large amounts of money can only be gotten from the
same plutocratic shot calling individuals and corporations who make the
careers of Republicans like Mitt Romney and Democrats like Barack Obama
possible. How irresponsible, how locked down, how deceitfully scripted
and divorced from the real world in which most of us live are these
presidential debates? Besides everything the candidates agree upon,
and who runs the so-called debate "commission," all you need to know is
that one of the marquee sponsors of the 2012 presidential debates, and
the 2008 ones as well, is an industry front group called the American
Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. Both Republican and Democratic
presidential candidates are deep in the pockets of "clean coal," as
they are in the pockets of Big Ag, Big Insurance, military contractors,
Wall Street and other centers of real power. One answer to the lack of
real discussions presented us by the rigged "commission" on
presidential debates will be Occupy The Debates, a project undertaken
by Occupy activists in multiple cities, in which a live meeting will
entertain live questions from a live audience. Occupy the Debate's
first scheduled public meeting will be in Denver CO, the same night as
the first so-called "debate" between the two corporate candidates.
Occupy the Debates will be streamed live on the internet that evening,
and will include the participation of Black Agenda Report
co-founder Glen Ford. Several occupy movements around the country are
expected to follow suit and organize their own local events over the
next few weeks. For more information on real debates on real issues,
visit Occupy the Debates either on Facebook or at www.occupythedebates.org -- that's www.occupythedebates.org.
Lastly,
Senator Patty Murray chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
(which holds a joint-hearing this week with the House Veterans Affairs
Comittee). Her office notes:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Matt McAlvanah
Monday, October 01, 2012 (202) 224-2834
Chairman Murray's Statement on IG Report Detailing Waste at VA Conferences
(Washington,
D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the
Office of Inspector General at the Department of Veterans Affairs
released a report on their investigation into two conferences in
Orlando run by VA's Office of Human Resources and Administration.
"I
am deeply dismayed by what the Office of Inspector General has found
regarding these conferences. The blatant waste of taxpayer dollars and
government employees improperly accepting gifts cannot, and will not,
be tolerated.
"The
IG report highlights failures in areas that have continually been
problems for VA, including contracting and human resources. I expect
the Department to act quickly to address these longstanding
shortcomings."
###
Matt McAlvanah
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct
