Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Where's the tv news coverage of a worsened Iraq?
Common Ground Common Sense > Grassroots Organizing > Action Items & Grassroots Organizing Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
ghostgovt
Remember back when this Iraq Haze began???? Oh how the republican flavored news media just reported over and over 24/7 all the bombastic news in Iraq that it could!! Remember how by it's 1st aniversary of that BushCo 'invasion' we were kickin' arse and winning that war as the news covered it heavily? Then the coming elections in Iraq... oh how important that was to see those poor confused Iraqis be tricked into voting.. but some paying with their lives or loosing that purple finger for believing that BushCo would make their lives better for it.

Then our news media shifted into this extra high gear for pushing propaganda.... as true reporters from Iraq began to be eliminated, with some leaving Iraq as other foreign news services were being instructed to dumb it down. It's all about the propaganda baby!

As 'real' news of worsening conditions in Iraq barely surfaces now, we hardly see any tv coverage about this at. Instead, we are fed the ridiculous coverage of the Jackson trial 24/7 (with other nonesense nothings in the news) and brainwashed with BushCo news. As war with Syria creeps closer.... and BushCo's presence in the Middle East pushing many Arab countries deeper into it's own civil wars, the news here just reports the diversions taking place in Congress created by BushCo. That and the 'terrorist alert' fear factors of course.

Isn't it time we pull the plug on BushCo news? America needs some serious movements and one of those movements would be to bombard these news media programs with our own 'force' of words. Lets let them know that we grade them with an 'F' and find them totally irresponsible and ridiculous.... and sometimes as childish and embarrassing as we see Bushie Boy. Lets each of us send one email a week to a cable news network telling them that they are just as full of it as all of BushCo! Mention to others how the news is not focused on the real true issues of the world or right here in America. Lou Dobbs on CNN seems to be the only one who gets it.

mad.gif


http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1286031,00050001.htm

Iraq insurgency has worsened: US intelligence
Washington, March 19, 2005|09:45 IST

Though US President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been giving the impression that the insurgency situation in Iraq is improving, the American Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which monitors the situation daily, says it has worsened.
david sobien
And what is congress concerned with? Baseball drug problems. To pull the feeding tube or not to pull the feeding tube. Meanwhile American troops get to have their arms and legs blown off daily. $100 billion is pissed away each year in Iraq. Are these people nuts? Or are they treating us like mushrooms?
heritage
The republicans want you to think that the Iraqi elections remedied all problems. If you don't find out news on the internet, they can continue the propaganda and lies.
big sky brad
Bush is waiting for all the insurgents to "find gawd", lay down their weapons, become born again fundamentalist Christians, and stop killing other people.

Then he can show all the rebuilding we haven't been doing in Iraq.

Maybe by this time next year Americans will wake up and realize what a fraud Bush really is, but considering that half of the US population has to be told by some guy on teevee what reality is before they think they know what it is, I wouldn't count on it if they are still watching Faux Snooze.
The_Bammo
News about Iraq goes through filters

How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has admitted there are none?

How is it possible that millions of Americans believe the recent election in Iraq showed that Iraqis are in favor of the ongoing occupation of their country? In reality, the determination displayed by the roughly 59 percent of registered voters who participated in the election did so because they felt it would bring about an end to the U.S. occupation.

How do so many Americans wonder why more Iraqis each day are supporting both violent and non-violent movements of resistance to the occupation when after the U.S. government promised to help rebuild Iraq, a mere 2 percent of reconstruction contracts were awarded to Iraqi concerns and the infrastructure lies in shambles?

It's because overall, mainstream media reportage in the United States about the occupation in Iraq is being censured, distorted, threatened by the military and controlled by corporations that own the outlets.

Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Eason Jordan, a CNN executive, told a panel that the U.S. military deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq. He said he "knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts who was on the panel with Jordan.

When we hear this statement with the knowledge that 63 journalists have been killed in Iraq, in addition to the fact that in a 14-month-period, more journalists were killed in Iraq than during the entire Vietnam War, one begins to get the feeling that the military clampdown on the media is more than a myth or a conspiracy theory.

(Editor's note: Jordan has since resigned from CNN, telling fellow CNN staffers: "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise.")

I've personally witnessed photographers in Baghdad who have had their cameras either confiscated or smashed by soldiers, who were, of course, acting on orders from their superiors. And no, the journalists weren't trying to photograph something that would jeopardize the security of the soldiers.

Even Christiane Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, announced on national television that her own network was censuring her journalism.

Most Americans don't know that on any given day, an average of three U.S. soldiers die in Iraq as a result of 75 attacks every single day on U.S. forces or that Iraqi civilian deaths average 10 times that amount.

Most Americans also don't know there are four permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, with the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root diligently constructing 10 others.

Most Americans don't know overall troop morale in Iraq resembles that of the Vietnam War, with tours being extended and stop-loss orders imposed.

Nor do most folks know where billions of their tax dollars have been spent that were supposed to be used in the reconstruction of Iraq.

But who can blame Americans when the military and mainstream media continue, day in and day out, to distort, deny and destroy the truth before it reaches the audience back home? An international peoples' initiative called the World Tribunal on Iraq met in Rome to focus on media complicity in the crimes committed against the people of Iraq as well as U.S. citizens who are paying with their blood and tax dollars to maintain the occupation. The tribunal found Western mainstream media outlets guilty of incitement to violence and the deliberate misleading of people into the war and ongoing occupation of Iraq.

Makes you wonder what else Americans aren't being told about Iraq. After spending eight of the past 14 months reporting from Iraq, I can tell you the points made here are just the tip of the iceberg.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/212320_jamail17.html

flydangler
Ooooooooooh, methinks somebody here ain't gonna like Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy' , eh?
ghostgovt
I have to admit, CBS still lets a little more real news make it to the screen. Our media isn't 100% blocked out yet.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/...ain541815.shtml

Ramadi Blast Kills 11 Iraqi Police
(Page 1 of 2)

March 25, 2005

(CBS/AP) A suicide bomber detonated an explosives-laden vehicle near the restive central city of Ramadi, killing 11 Iraqi police commandos and injured 14 other people including two U.S. Army soldiers, the U.S. military said Friday.

The Thursday evening blast at a checkpoint on the eastern outskirts of Ramadi also wounded nine Iraqi security-force members and three civilians, bringing the list of victims to 25, U.S. Marine Capt. Jeffrey Pool told The Associated Press.

The attacker also died in the explosion near the flashpoint Sunni Triangle city of Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad.

In an eastern Baghdad neighborhood, unidentified attackers killed five female translators working for the U.S. military late Thursday, said police Capt. Ahmed Aboud.

The translators "were heading home when gunmen driving two cars sprayed them with machine-gun fire," said Aboud on Friday. Further details weren't immediately available.

Insurgents routinely target U.S. forces and their perceived collaborators as well as members of Iraq's government, army and police — security forces the U.S. military says must gain better control of the strife-torn country before any major U.S. troop withdrawal.
Marine
QUOTE(big sky brad @ Mar 21 2005, 08:54 AM)
Bush is waiting for all the insurgents to "find gawd", lay down their weapons, become born again fundamentalist Christians, and stop killing other people.

Then he can show all the rebuilding we haven't been doing in Iraq.

Maybe by this time next year Americans will wake up and realize what a fraud Bush really is, but considering that half of the US population has to be told by some guy on teevee what reality is before they think they know what it is, I wouldn't count on it if they are still watching Faux Snooze.
*

Now that's a creative solution brad, proves you can think outside of the box. I wouldn't have thought of you to be an evangelical. Do you really think it will work though? Sounds a little far fetched to me.
ghostgovt
This tends to slow the news down.... we need to put cameramen inside armored suits.

embarrased.gif doh.gif



http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=8093780

Cameraman for CBS Wounded by U.S. Troops in Iraq
Tue Apr 5, 2005 04:14 PM ET


NEW YORK (Reuters) - An Iraqi freelance cameraman who works for CBS News was shot and wounded on Tuesday in northern Iraq by U.S. troops who mistook his camera for a weapon, the U.S. military and CBS News said.

The cameraman and reporter suffered minor injuries when he was shot while covering a firefight for CBS in Mosul, CBS News said. It asked that the man's name not be reported for his protection.

The U.S. military said in a statement from Mosul released at the Pentagon that U.S. soldiers had been involved in an engagement with at least one suspected insurgent who was "waving an AK-47 (assault rifle) and inciting a crowd of civilians."
nnrecrut
QUOTE(ghostgovt @ Mar 20 2005, 08:44 AM)
As 'real' news of worsening conditions in Iraq barely surfaces now, we hardly see any tv coverage about this at. Instead, we are fed the ridiculous coverage of the Jackson trial 24/7 (with other nonesense nothings in the news) and brainwashed with BushCo news.
 
*


It is not popular to report the "real news" on Iraq. The MSM is putting a positive and optimistic spin on what is happening, and I think many Americans want it that way. Since my community is 80% Republican and staunch Bush supporters--they want to hear the positive news--and get very defensive when told differently. I do find that many think that any negative report suggests the journalist or media outlet is liberal and does not want to report the positive in fear that Bush will get the credit for making the war a success.

So, that leaves those of us who have family members in Afghan., Kuwait and Iraq having to search the internet for independent and International news sources to find "real news". I am never sure I find "real news", I take it all in and try to balance it out so I get some idea on what may be the real story. I would like to believe news is as positive and optimistic as our MSM wants us to believe, but I know better.

Car bombings continue in Iraq
by
Tuesday 05 April 2005 6:17 AM GMT


Checkpoints are often targeted by fighters using car bombs

Two car bombs targeting US and Iraqi security forces have exploded in different parts of Baghdad, killing three people, police say.

The shock wave from the first blast near the international airport on Tuesday shook nearby buildings and was heard across the southwestern part of the capital.

Police said two civilians were killed in the blast.


Another car bomb exploded in the path of a US military convoy in al-Dura area south of Baghdad, Aljazeera reported.



A US Humvee and a civilian car were destroyed in the explosion.



A US soldier was killed in the incident, the army said.



One civilian was injured and brought to Yarmuk hospital in western Baghdad, a medical source said. Another person was reported to have been killed, but no further details were provided.



US forces cordoned off the area, while Iraqi forces prevented anyone from approaching it.



Intense battle



In other incidents, an Iraqi soldier and two US soldiers were killed on Monday in an intense battle with fighters northeast of Baghdad, the US military said on Tuesday.




Attacks on US forces have fallen
to 50 a day in recent weeks


"Coalition forces and Iraqi army soldiers encountered and attacked terrorist forces in a remotely populated region east of Baghdad at about 4pm (1200 GMT) on 4 April," a US military statement said.



A US marine was killed in action on Monday in Iraq's Anbar province west of Baghdad, the US military also said.

The marine was killed by "an explosion which occurred during combat operations".

In related news, police sources said a general in the Iraqi army had been abducted.

An Interior Ministry source said Brigadier-General Jalal Muhammad Salih and his bodyguards were pulled from his car by an armed group in the Mansur district of the capital at 11.30am (0730 GMT).



He was the commander in charge of the ministry's 1600-strong armoured brigade.



Bodies found



Iraqi police have found the corpses of 10 Iraqi soldiers buried in the Jurf al-Sakhr area, south of Baghdad, Aljazeera reported.




Corpses of executed Iraqi soldiers
are routinely found in Iraq


In Hilla, armed men killed a member of the Babil provincial council, Salim Hilal, as he was heading to work, Babil provincial police spokesman Captain Muthana Khalid said.

He said two suspects in the attack were arrested.

In the central city of Baquba, armed men wounded a government translator and killed her father in a drive-by shooting, Brigadier-General Adil Mulan of the Diala provincial police department said.

Prison riot

The US army has issued a statement revealing details of a riot at one of the prisons it runs in southern Iraq.



Inmates at Camp Bucca - the largest US-run prison in Iraq - hurled rocks and set tents on fire earlier this month, and four guards and 12 prisoners were wounded before the riot was brought under control on 1 April.



"During the disturbance, the detainees chanted, threw rocks and set several of their tents on fire"

US Army statement

It said prisoners in one compound protested about the transfer of detainees to another compound.



"During the disturbance, the detainees chanted, threw rocks and set several of their tents on fire," an army statement said.



"The disturbance was brought under control with only minor injuries to four guards and 12 detainees."



Last month, prison guards foiled a jailbreak by finding two tunnels dug under the ground at Camp Bucca. One of the tunnels had cleared the perimeter fence of the prison.



In January, US guards shot and killed four inmates during a riot at the same camp.


Aljazeera + Agencies
By

You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7C2...223272BF331.htm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CCF...17B1BF67B69.htm
A young Iraqi woman, who was one of the first to start a blog on conditions in the wake of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, tells Aljazeera.net how life has changed since the first bombs started falling and martial law was imposed.
nnrecrut
Info on daily happenings in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/oif/

Also,
Juan Cole: informedcomment.com
April 6, 2005

Huhn? The Real Iraq

The unfortunate tendency in the United States to evaluate all statements about Iraq with regard to whether they are "optimistic" (i.e. pro-Bush) or "pessimistic" (i.e. anti-Bush) makes it difficult for those who just want to understand what is going on. I get slammed by the Jeff Jarvis's for reporting bad news (shouldn't it be reported?) or I get cited by rightwing bloggers when I say things like that the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement cannot win.

If you spend any time reading Arabic newspapers, the main conclusion you draw about Iraq is that it just isn't like the typical American imagination of it. I've extracted a few paras. (from a long set of summaries) from the BBC World Monitoring for April 3 and 4 from the Iraqi press below. Each of the entries has a "what in the world?" factor as I read them, just because you don't see this sort of thing in the US media.

April 4:



Al-Furat publishes on page 3 a 1,200-word report citing a number of people expressing their opinion on the "occupation" of Iraq at its 2nd anniversary. Most people interviewed believe that the "occupation" forces plan to remain in Iraq as long as possible and that disputes among Iraqis prolong their presence in the country.


When and if the divisions lessen, I expect to see a popular movement to get US troops out of Iraq.

Al-Ufuq reveals that there was a serious assassination attempt on Jalal Talabani (the new president) on March 9.

April 3:


'Al-Da'wah publishes on the front page a 300-word report on the statement issued by the Al-Da'wah Party, Iraq Organization, on the 40th anniversary of the Imam Al-Husayn martyrdom saying that our people are being subjected to a large scale conspiracy by the US allies and agents in the region . . .'



The new prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, is the leader of the Dawa Party. He is well spoken in English, and says mollifying things to the US and the UK, but the Dawa Party which he leads is an old-time revolutionary Shiite Party, and here is the statement of the Party organization itself, on the front page of the party newspaper. I don't think they like us very much. If you read between the lines, they are clearly afraid that the Kurds have a tacit alliance wit the Israelis.


'Al-Ufuq publishes on the front page a 250-word follow-up report citing the Association of Muslim Scholars denying that it has issued a fatwa permitting recruitment in the Iraqi Army and police . . .'


Well, we saw the original announcement in the US press, prominently displayed alongside talking head comments about tipping points. But somehow we missed the subsequent disavowal (no doubt by a different section of AMS).



Al-Ittijah al-Akhar on 2 April publishes on page 4 a 700-word report citing Habib Jabir Habib, an Iranian researcher, as saying, in a seminar organized by the Strategic and Political Researches Gulf Centre in Dubai, that his country still regards Iraq as a possible enemy, adding that it has been working to prevent the US from controlling Iraq . . . '


D'oh.



'Al-Ittijah al-Akhar on 2 April publishes on page 7 a 750-word letter by an Islamic group to National Assembly Sunni member Misha'n al-Juburi accusing him of liberalism and secularism and urging him to adopt Islam teachings . . . '


Ex-Baathists are caught between the hatred for them of religious Shiites and of Kurds, and the hatred of them by Sunni fundamentalists within their own ethnic group.



Al-Manarah publishes on the front page a 750-word editorial by Khalaf al-Munshidi in which he criticizes the British forces in Basra for launching raids on the Tamim Tribe in Basra.



If it can't be found at google.news, did it happen?



' Al-Bayan carries on page 4 a 1,200-word report citing a number of university professors who returned home after the downfall of the former regime to contribute to the construction of Iraq, complaining that they are unable to find jobs.

Al-Ufuq publishes on page 4 a 150-word report citing an official source at the Health Ministry informing the newspaper that according to the latest survey conducted by his ministry in cooperation with an international organization there are over one million handicapped in Iraq.

Al-Ufuq devotes all of page 6 to a report discussing the poor emergency health care services in Iraq.

Al-Ittijah al-Akhar on 2 April publishes on page 9 a 150-word letter by an Iraqi citizen criticizing the US forces for torturing Iraqi detainees in Mosul. The letter includes pictures of tortured Iraqi prisoners . . .

Al-Bayan publishes on page 4 a 400-word column by Zaynab al-Khafaji commenting on the Pentagon's recent announcement that it plans to reevaluate the US military presence in Iraq next summer. The writer urges the Iraqi Government to boost the capabilities, training and performance of the Iraqi security forces, which have proved their efficiency in confronting terrorism, in order to provide the appropriate grounds for the departure of foreign forces from Iraq.

Al-Ittijah al-Akhar on 2 April publishes on page 6 a 750-word article by Abd-al-Sattar Ramadan criticizing the US for not punishing the US soldiers responsible for abusing Iraqi detainees in a US-run prison in Mosul . . .

Al-Mashriq runs on page 2 a 1000-word article saying that the "lukewarm" relations between Gulf Cooperation Council member countries and Iraq are due to the fact that these countries have fears from the Shi'i identity of the new Iraqi political system and the prominent role being played by the religious authority in the political life of Iraq.

Al-Mashriq runs on page 2 a 200-word commentary saying that the military experts' emphasis on the current situation in Iraq has created tension in the relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia and as the latter fears that Al-Qa'idah may make of Iraq a new bases, thus countering Saudi Arabia's efforts to destroy Al-Qa'idah . . .

Al-Furat carries on page 5 a 700-word article by Ahmad al-Murshid in which he comments on the US question that has recently been raised: "Why do they hate us in the Arab and Islamic world?" The writer says that not only people in the Middle East hate the United States, but people all over the world.

Al-Zaman publishes on page 13 a 400-word article by Mundir al-A'sam warning against adopting federalism and dividing Iraq into small states. The writer says that this is an "imperialistic and Israeli scheme". '


posted by Juan @ 4/6/2005 06:08:00 AM
big sky brad
Teevee is being filtered, Bammo?

You don't say?

roflmbo.gif
Marine
QUOTE(big sky brad @ Apr 6 2005, 05:01 PM)
Teevee is being filtered, Bammo?

You don't say?

roflmbo.gif
*

It's a conspiracy against brad secret.gif dontknow.gif
ghostgovt
QUOTE(The_Bammo @ Mar 24 2005, 08:25 PM)
Makes you wonder what else Americans aren't being told about Iraq. After spending eight of the past 14 months reporting from Iraq, I can tell you the points made here are just the tip of the iceberg.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/212320_jamail17.html

  [/i][/b][/size][/color][/font]
*


It's ALL about the propaganda.

That's how it works in our society.... mind control for programing the sheeple. It's 3 ways of getting huge doses of propaganda.... church, military, and the Fox Network media club. Step right up and get all the news according to BushCo and Neoconic DC. The masters of dumbing and hoodwinking. blink.gif
vfguenley
QUOTE(flydangler @ Mar 25 2005, 07:28 PM)
Ooooooooooh, methinks somebody here ain't gonna like Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy' , eh?
*


Here is one way the propaganda is used. This is an example of a righty trying to tell us that this war is going way better than we think. I believe this post is supposed to make me think that because the insurgency is not going well, that somehow this helps justify our being there in the first place. It also suggests that we liberals like it when things are not going well for the shrubs team, what a bunch of trash, this is the same tactic used by the neocon misinformation machine to justify this bad idea of a war in the first place. It's sure not going to "fly" well with some who thrive on the truth.
Marine
QUOTE(vfguenley @ Apr 7 2005, 09:07 AM)
Here is one way the propaganda is used. This is an example of a righty trying to tell us that this war is going way better than we think. I believe this post is supposed to make me think that because the insurgency is not going well, that somehow this helps justify our being there in the first place. It also suggests that we liberals like it when things are not going well for the shrubs team, what a bunch of trash, this is the same tactic used by the neocon misinformation machine to justify this bad idea of a war in the first place. It's sure not going to "fly" well with some who thrive on the truth.
*


It's a shame the war has to go badly for the position the democratic party has accepted to get any traction, remind me something, how bad did McGovern get beat?
ghostgovt
QUOTE(vfguenley @ Apr 7 2005, 09:07 AM)
Here is one way the propaganda is used. This is an example of a righty trying to tell us that this war is going way better than we think. I believe this post is supposed to make me think that because the insurgency is not going well, that somehow this helps justify our being there in the first place. It also suggests that we liberals like it when things are not going well for the shrubs team, what a bunch of trash, this is the same tactic used by the neocon misinformation machine to justify this bad idea of a war in the first place. It's sure not going to "fly" well with some who thrive on the truth.
*


Here's a little piece about propaganda as described in 1919 by Stars and Stripes.


"Propaganda is nothing but a fancy name for publicity, and who knows the publicity game better than the Yanks? Why, the Germans make no bones about admitting that they learned the trick from us. Now the difference between a Boche and a Yank is just this -- that a Boche is some one who believes everything that's told him and a Yank is some one who disbelieves everything that's told him."



http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/..._wont_sell.html

March 29, 2005

Why World War IV Can't Sell

By John Brown

In a recent essay (Are We in World War IV?) Tom Engelhardt commented quite rightly that "World War IV" has "become a commonplace trope of the imperial right." But he didn't mention one small matter -- the rest of our country, not to speak of the outside world, hasn't bought the neocons' efforts to justify the President's militaristic adventures abroad with crude we're-in-World War IV agitprop meant to mobilize Americans in support of the administration's foreign policy follies. That's why, in his second term, George W. Bush -- first and foremost a politician concerned about maintaining domestic support -- is talking ever less about waging a global war and ever more about democratizing the world.

A Neocon Global War

The neocons have long paid lip service to the need for democracy in the Middle East, but their primary emphasis has been on transformation by war, not politics. You'll remember that, according to our right-wing world warriors, we're inextricably engaged in a planetary struggle against fanatic Muslim fundamentalists. There will, they assure us, be temporary setbacks in this total generational conflict, as was the case during World War II and the Cold War (considered World War III by neocons), but we can win in the end if we "stay the course" with patriotic fortitude. Above all, we must not be discouraged by the gory details of the real, nasty war in Iraq in which we're already engaged, despite the loss of blood and treasure involved. Like so many good Soviet citizens expecting perfect Communism in the indeterminate future, all we have to do is await the New American Century that will eventually be brought into being by the triumphs of American arms (and neocon cheerleading).

Since at least 9/11, the neocons have rambled on… and on… about "World War IV." But no matter how often they've tried to beat the phrase into our heads, it hasn't become part of the American mindset. Peace and honest work, not perpetual war and senseless conflict, still remain our modest ideals -- even with (because of?) the tragedy of the Twin Towers. True, right before the presidential election, WWIV surfaced again and again in the media, fed by neocon propaganda; and even today it appears here and there, though as often in criticism as boosterism. Pat Buchanan and Justin Raimondo have recently used the phrase to criticize neocon hysteria in their columns; and in its winter 2005 issue, the Wilson Quarterly published "World War IV," an important article by Andrew J. Bacevich, which turns the neocons' argument on its head by suggesting that it was the U.S. which started a new world war -- a disastrous struggle for control of Middle Eastern oil reserves -- during the Carter administration. For Bacevich, it appears, the neocons' cherished verbal icon should not be a call to arms, but a sad reminder of the hubris of military overreach.
carteblanche
QUOTE(big sky brad @ Mar 21 2005, 10:54 AM)
Bush is waiting for all the insurgents to "find gawd", lay down their weapons, become born again fundamentalist Christians, and stop killing other people.


brad, this would be funny if it wasn't so sad, and true!

Please, will somebody please tell me ... why aren't our troops coming home now? Iraq has its leadership, they're demonstrating in the streets, can't our guys/gals just come home now?

And will somebody please tell the media that WE DON'T CARE about Michael Jackson!!! blink.gif
ghostgovt
QUOTE(carteblanche @ Apr 12 2005, 07:51 AM)
brad, this would be funny if it wasn't so sad, and true!

Please, will somebody please tell me ... why aren't our troops coming home now?  Iraq has its leadership, they're demonstrating in the streets, can't our guys/gals  just come home now?

And will somebody please tell the media that WE DON'T CARE about Michael Jackson!!! blink.gif
*


This is a very good point carteblanche, and one that has been apparent for a couple of years. I'd say that over half of this nation does want the troops home in America to defend America's borders as what many should be doing. Unfortunately, this country does not have true representation of that real majority part of this nation to do that since we no longer have true democracy which was stolen by BushCo.

Many troops now consists of those who are needing a paycheck... as things in America grow worse. Some are still hyped up on BushCo proaganda and actually think they are in this doing right by BushCo... but as many here knows, they are so badly brainwashed into believeing that. Anyways, if you get the chance, google up PNAC and read why there will always be a BushForce that will continue to be in troubled lands across the big pond(s). At this point on, those who continue to sign up into BushForce are desperate and needing money to survive.... just as BushCo planned on. We are becoming a military society under this neocon regime.

This all will fall under the guise of why we are at wars after a foreign nation attacks us out of retalliation along the way.... either in real life or as a set up. I have already sensed and also read information as to how this may happen with Iran.... goating them into a false war with US, causing them to attack US per BushCo tricks and propaganda. It will be another lie, same same 'Nam.... same same Iraq. This involves Israel with incidents that will follow and take place in the Persian Gulf.

Forget about the US media coming clean as it peddles worthless crap that we see today. The news will switch over to Iran once the set up is in place showing Iran as being the 'bad' guys who attacks first... the news then will be loaded with hammering Iran once this all begins.

thumbdown.gif
Marine
Source: The Christian Science Monitor
Date: 18 March, 2005

Patchwork of progress and perils in Iraq

By Jill Carroll | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD – Last week, Diyala Province felt the benefit of American reconstruction money: two farm cooperatives got under way, providing a much-needed source of income for several families in the often violent province.
This week, the area felt the sting of the insurgency: A suicide bomber drove into an Iraqi Army checkpoint, killing several soldiers.

Two years after US forces rolled into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, contradictory forces are tugging at the war-torn country. Iraqis turned out in droves to vote for an 275-member assembly that took its seats Wednesday. Many are enthusiastically tapping into a world long closed to them by sanctions - snapping up satellite TV dishes and imported food.

But an aggressive insurgency has stymied crucial tasks of rebuilding and providing security, disillusioning ordinary Iraqis who thought the US presence would bring rapid change.

"There are some positive developments," says Rachel Bronson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. But "in the context of the security situation it's hard to say it's going well."

By now, military planners had envisioned a US presence that was a fraction of the 150,000 troops currently in Iraq. Oil revenues and foreign business investment were expected to provide jobs and buoy the economy.

The US Agency for International Development says it has spent some $4.8 billion so far on reconstruction projects across Iraq. But restoring basic services and creating new jobs is proving problematic.

"Everything shuts down without law and order," Ms. Bronson says. "It doesn't matter if you have jobs if you can't get to those jobs."

Indeed, few US efforts are reaching into the country's most troubled areas. While restive Diyala has received aid to start its beekeeping and calf cooperatives, along with sewage improvements and assistance to local government, most projects are in relatively stable areas to the north and in some areas of the south, according to the latest US AID update.

Still, Iraqis have seen progress on a number of fronts.

While unemployment is about 48 percent, according to the Ministry of Labor and Social Labor and Social Affairs, salaries are higher for the jobs that are available, typically ones linked to the government. Salaries of teachers, bureaucrats, and policemen, have gone up, as have pensions. The starting salary of a policeman is about $220, enough for a family to live on and, to many Iraqis, worth the risk of being targeted by insurgents. Some pensioners and teachers have seen their income grow tenfold.

As a result, many families say they can now afford meat with most meals and a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. This, despite prices that have spiked by about a third on some food items, including meat, fruits, and vegetables, according to merchants in Baghdad. But canned foods, soft drinks, and bananas, virtually taxed out of existence before the war, are now available at a fraction of their Hussein-era prices.

Electronic equipment has also been flying off the shelves since the war opened borders once shuttered by sanctions.

Many Iraqis can also afford a mobile phone, a modern convenience banned under Saddam Hussein. Egyptian-owned Orascom Telecom, which provides mobile-phone service to Baghdad and central Iraq, had 82,000 subscribers at the end of 2003, the year the company began operating in Iraq. By November 2004, it had signed up 480,000 subscribers and is now planning to reach 1 million subscribers by the end of this year by spreading its services to southern and northern Iraq, according to the company's website.

But Orascom's experience is emblematic of the problems facing those trying to take advantage of new opportunities.

Security problems have made it difficult for the company's workers, who have been kidnapped and shot at, to expand the network. Currently, it may require a dozen attempts before phones connect, and the network often doesn't work at all during large chunks of the day.

Insurgents have worked to undermine basic services like electricity and water supplies in an effort to turn Iraqis against the US and erode American will to stay in Iraq. It's a hallmark tactic of "fourth generation warfare," says Col. Thomas Hammes, a senior military fellow at the National Defense University.

Insurgents "seek to convince enemy political leaders that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. The fundamental precept is that superior political will, when properly employed, can defeat greater economic and military power," he wrote in a paper published in January.

That means two years after war began, electricity is on about two out of every six hours in the capital because insurgents are attacking the workers trying to repair the power grid. Electricity output has been restored only to prewar levels, 4,400 megawatts a day.

But unlike Hussein's era, it is distributed equitably. Baghdad, once given extra electricity at the expense of southern regions which Hussein repressed, now has to share with the rest of the country.

Insurgents have also struck at Iraqis' aging oil infrastructure, which US administration officials expected to be the lifeblood of the country's reconstruction. Insurgents have handed out leaflets saying working on the oil infrastructure is helping the US, and anyone doing so will be killed. They have made good on those threats, attacking workers trying to repair damaged pipelines and refineries.

Attacks on oil tankers, pipelines, and refineries, particularly this fall, have periodically cut as much as 100,000 of barrels of production from the country's usual average of 2 million barrels a day.

As a result, Iraqis had to wait as much as two days this fall and winter for a fill-up.

Attacks jumped from about 12 each month before the US handover of sovereignty June 28 to about 24 a month in October 2004, spiking at 46 attacks in November and continuing into the winter with about one or two a day, according the interim Oil Minister Thamer Ghadban.

But most Iraqis say they can live with gas lines and power outages if they can be assured of safety.

"Yes, some new things are available now, mobile phones, satellite TV, new cars. But the thing that we lost is more valuable," says Basim Majid, the manager of an electronics store. "We are in the middle of chaos and there is no way back. I hope they use force to spread security."

Bassam Henna, who is unemployed, is discouraged. "Frankly, the time of Saddam was better in general," he says. "Not Saddam himself, with all his faults and all his mistakes, but in general, that time was better than now. If we are missing him, imagine what the situation is like."

Marine
Source: Al Mendhar News Center
Date: 14 April, 2005
Minister of Planning and Developmental Cooperation Launches the System of Foreign Aids’ Follow-up

Al-Dostoor: In Amman, Jordan, Dr. Mahdi al-Hafez, Iraqi minister of planning and developmental cooperation, has launched the training course of the system for the administration of foreign aids to Iraq.

Twelve personnel for the Iraqi ministry of planning and developmental cooperation have participated in this training, a ten days intensive course, which is supported by the UN developmental program and financed by the Iraqi Reconstruction Fund. The training would concentrate on running and operating the Donor Assistance Database (DAD), which would have its headquarters in the ministry of planning and developmental cooperation.

The minister, Dr. Mahdi al-Hafez, said, “ This is a basic database for the efforts of the reconstruction of Iraq. In the presence tens of thousands of individual projects, whose cost top billions of dollars, we urgently need a tool to assist us in administering and following-up with the foreign aids, and also following –up with the projects, in addition to generate and analyze the information necessary for making the right decisions for investment, in both the governmental and private sectors. This database would help us to specify the priorities in the activities, and consequently, estimating the effect of foreign aids, in accordance with the aims with the granting authority.”

The session of launching the course was the first activity of a series of training sessions, which are aimed at the ministry of planning and developmental cooperation. In later stages, with available finance, training would include the ministry of finance and other related ministries.

Miss Annie Dimirgean, UN development program official, said, “The Iraqi administration needs a clear image and understanding of the locations, where the reconstruction projects are executed, the authorities that are financing those projects, what sectors they are executed in, knowing the geographical location and how these projects are connected with the other aspects of reconstruction, such as the strategy of national development, for instance. The Donor assistance Database (DAD) in actually an electronic tool on the Internet to collect data, follow-up and planning, to immediately realize who is doing what and where. Our role is to support the administrative and technical skills of the ministry personnel to be able to use this distinctive planning tool confidently. The continuity of this activity is mainly based on the possession and operation of the database by the national authorities.”

The ministry of planning and developmental cooperation will transfer its current data into the new system, in addition to the provision of donors, on the level of mutual and multiple cooperation, such as the United Nations, USAID and the International Bank, with data, which is related to their projects, to install them into the database.

The UN developmental program has successfully executed similar databases in other countries that have been through crises, to organize reconstruction efforts and to avoid the overlap of such efforts. One of the most prominent examples is what the organization did in Afghanistan.
Marine
Source: Al Mendhar News Center
Date: 14 April, 2005
Iraq: A Long And Winding Road


It was an historic election by any measure, a turning point for Iraq, and perhaps for the entire Middle East. Certainly it was a boost for the Bush administration’s dream of planting democracy in that part of the world.

Equally certainly, Iraq’s election was just the beginning of a long and difficult process. The main task of the new parliament the Iraqi voters have now elected will be to draft a new constitution for Iraq. And that’s where the really hard decisions will have to be made.

When the Iraqis were offered the opportunity of whether or not to vote in their country’s first democratic election in half a century, the choice was clear. Most responded affirmatively, even courageously. But now that their elected representatives will have to decide exactly what kind of an Iraqi state they want, the choices are more complicated.

The most difficult choice, and one that may determine whether Iraq will survive as a unified state, will be to determine the borders of the Kurdish region of Iraq and the extent of its autonomy. That will be one of the make or break issues when the new parliament debates the future of Iraq.

The Kurdish region of Iraq has enjoyed de facto autonomy since 1991, when the United States and its allies defeated Saddam Hussein the first time, and declared the northern part of Iraq a safe haven for the 3.7 million people who live there. Most are Kurds, an ancient ethnic group whose tribal areas spill over into the surrounding countries, but there is also a sizeable minority of ethnic Turks.

While the rest of Iraq is torn by violence, the Kurdish area enjoys peace and prosperity. Shopping malls are going up fast, and businessmen from neighboring Turkey are sniffing out opportunities. The difference between the Kurdish region and the rest of Iraq is like day and night. And that’s part of the problem.

While the leaders of the various Kurdish factions proclaim their willingness to remain part of a loosely federated Iraq, an increasing number of their followers, especially the younger generation, look at the chaos in the rest of the country and dream of an independent Kurdistan. It’s an old dream for the Kurdish people, who have never had a country of their own.

The argument that the newly elected parliament will have to resolve is how much autonomy and how much territory to give the Kurdish region. The latter may be harder than the former, because most Kurds insist that the city of Kirkuk should be the capital of their region. They call it their “ Jerusalem.” The problem is that it is part of another province, just beyond the currently designated Kurdish region. Kirkuk Province also happens to be the richest oil region of Iraq. It is a prize worth fighting for.

When Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, he systematically expelled Kurds from Kirkuk and replaced them with Arabs. For the past two years, Kurds have been moving back in, trying to reverse the ethnic balance in Kirkuk. The city is now a tinderbox of ethnic tensions.

The United States has largely turned its back on the Kirkuk problem, but Nichervan Barzani, the prime minister of the Kurdish region, says the U.S. and the interim Iraqi government of Iyad Allawi are wrong to think that “time might solve the problem.”

He has drawn a line in the sand and insists that “this is something that Kurds are not going to make any concessions over.”

That’s where things stand now: The Kurds hold most of the key posts in the provincial government of Kirkuk, and are determined to hold onto the province. The rest of Iraq is not willing to give up the oil riches of the north. And the new parliament will somehow have to find a workable compromise. If it cannot, the alternatives could be a civil war, the break-up of Iraq, or in a worst-case scenario, the intervention of Turkey.
Marine
Source: Al Mendhar News Center
Date: 14 April, 2005
Projects in Iraq to Be Reevaluated
State Department faults use of U.S. firms for the reconstruction effort and announces it will shift some money to job creation for locals.
Story by THE LOS ANGELES TIMES


WASHINGTON — The State Department has ordered a major reevaluation of the troubled $18.4-billion Iraq reconstruction effort, blaming problems on early decisions to hire U.S. firms for major infrastructure projects.
In a report to Congress this week, the department says rebuilding officials will cancel several planned water and electricity plants and shift $832 million to focus on immediate job creation and training for Iraqis
The new approach will also place a strong emphasis on spending remaining funds to contract with Iraqi companies, which have experienced fewer problems with insurgents and have lower overhead than U.S. multinational firms.
"Changing conditions meant that the cost and time necessary to start and complete activities increased dramatically, requiring a significant and ongoing reevaluation of" the rebuilding plan, the report says.
The report, along with an earlier draft obtained by the Los Angeles Times, offers the most sweeping analysis to date of the failures in the reconstruction process and presents the most detailed road map yet for the future of the program.
The adjustment, the third such funding change in nine months, is the latest sign of disarray in the effort to help quell the insurgency by improving living standards and providing jobs for Iraqis.
The report lists problems with the performance of some firms, including Houston-based Halliburton Co. The report reveals that the U.S. issued a warning to KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, in January, threatening possible termination on its $1.2-billion oil industry reconstruction contract.
Bill Taylor, who heads the civilian reconstruction management office in Iraq, which wrote the report, said remaining funds would increasingly be focused on "systems" rather than individual projects. Iraqis have been frustrated, for instance, that new water treatment plants have been built without new water lines, resulting in millions of gallons of clean water that has no way to reach homes.
"When the facts on the ground change, you have to make some adjustments," Taylor said. "That's what we've been doing."
The draft version of the report comes to nearly identical conclusions but is more candid in spelling out problems with the reconstruction. It lists several assumptions made by the Pentagon that it says proved incorrect.
The draft says the Pentagon failed to account in its planning for four key factors that have contributed to the slow pace of the reconstruction: insurgent violence, an infrastructure system near the point of collapse from a decade of sanctions, the use of "restrictive" U.S. contracting laws and so-called cost-plus contracts.
Under such contracts, U.S. firms are reimbursed for all costs incurred in construction and guaranteed an additional percentage in profit depending on performance.
One of the problems, Taylor said, is that the U.S. has been forced to pay contractors even when, for security reasons, they do not work.
All told, more than $1.3 billion is being devoted to costs stemming from contractor delays, higher security demands and the reconstruction of battle zones such as Najaf and Fallouja, the report says.
The shifting of money also will help cover an estimated $5-billion shortfall in the Iraqi national budget. Insurgent attacks and the failure of reconstruction efforts in the oil sector have resulted in lower than anticipated oil revenues, making it impossible for Iraq to maintain and operate U.S.-funded reconstruction efforts.
The need for such funds explicitly contradicts a prediction then-Defense Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz made before Congress in 2003.
Iraqi ministries have "limited capacity … to provide their own resources for near-term reconstruction," the report says.
A spokesman for the Defense Department acknowledged "challenges" to the reconstruction effort.
He noted, however, that the number of reconstruction projects underway had increased from 200 to more than 2,000 over the last year. Of those, about 600 have been completed.
"The trend lines on progress in Iraq are up, and Iraq and the coalition are on track with work to rebuild the country," the spokesman said.
Reconstruction experts said a new approach was a long time coming.
"The plan for reconstruction was never a plan," said Steven L. Schooner, director of the Government Procurement Law Program at George Washington University. "It was unrealistic expectations and haste rather than rational decisions."
One of the firms singled out was Halliburton, which holds billions of dollars' worth of contracts in Iraq. The company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney has been criticized by Democrats and auditors over alleged overcharges.
U.S. Air Force Maj. Mike Waggle, the contract officer, said Friday that KBR, formerly known as Kellogg, Brown & Root, had repeatedly failed to control costs under its oil services contract.
In one case, he said, the company showed $436 million in cost overruns. The government later determined that the company had exceeded its budget by no more than $40 million. In another case, Waggle said, the company paid $436,000 in services for a subcontract limited to a maximum expenditure of $100,000.
Waggle said that the company had since taken steps to correct its estimates and that it had reassigned at least three top employees. He said he did not expect the government to terminate the contract, though a decision had not been made.
"We could never make the costs add up," Waggle said. "It was a continued process from the inception of contract."
KBR said it was working to ease the government's concerns.
"KBR has made adjustments to its [oil contract] management team in southern Iraq and is working closely with the client to expeditiously resolve the outstanding cost reporting issues," spokeswoman Stephanie Price said.

By T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer
big sky brad
QUOTE(Marine @ Apr 15 2005, 08:10 AM)
That’s where things stand now: The Kurds hold most of the key posts in the provincial government of Kirkuk.

Kirkuk was where some of the gunmen were killed Thursday when the car bombs went off in Baghdad.

Marine
Source: Agence France-Presse
Date: 17 April, 2005
Training for troops turns into hit-and-miss affair
By Pierre Celerier

KIRKUK — “The sooner they're ready, the faster we'll get out of here,” said a young American soldier after a drill training Iraqi soldiers in the tense northern oil province of Tamim.
The exercise began at dawn among hills just south of the provincial capital of Kirkuk and wound down at around midday.

“Who's the team leader? Tell him I want a traffic control point set up in 10 minutes,” Sergeant Luke Rodgers barked at a group of 20 Iraqi soldiers sat in front of a few barriers and several rolls of barbed wire.

The task of setting up the checkpoint is completed with a few minutes delay and with a certain amount of confusion.

Soldiers from the US 116th Brigade combat team have been training Iraqi soldiers in the provinces of Tamim and Suleimaniyah to the east since February.

The training of 1,000 men from Iraq's 208th Battalion, begun a year ago, is considered a success story.

Lieutenant Colonel Don Blunck, operations officer for the 116th, said he hopes to have an autonomous company of 200 men up and ready to perform their duties by July. The only equipment still lacking is vehicles for the troops.

But, cautioned Blunck, Iraqi “security forces aren't totally ready to take over and do security missions by themselves.”

Despite frequent deadly insurgent attacks on security forces, Iraq's new army is not short of recruits, said Lieutenant Colonel Samir Mohammed Hussein, 42, mainly thanks to the high pay. On Thursday, three Kirkuk policemen died in an attack on their new police station, while 10 members of Iraq's special oil facilities protection force were killed in a bomb attack north of the oil-rich city on Wednesday.

Hussein had the same rank under deposed leader Saddam Hussein, but he now earns around $800 a month compared to 35 before. A foot soldier, who was conscripted and paid nothing under Saddam, now earns $350.

“Before we had no uniform, no training, no equipment, the soldiers shot less than 10 bullets a year,” said Hussein, watching over his men from the top of a hill.

Now, he said, they can set up checkpoints, search suspects or vehicles, or storm a building.

“This company is doing pretty good,” said Sergeant Justin Sivertson. “The previous one, they'll all die if they meet a real enemy. But these are more disciplined, they have better officers.”

At first glance, the troops lack nothing: Uniforms, red berets, boots, and assault rifles. But Hussein complained that his men needed heavy weapons and armoured vehicles.

But NCOs didn't count for much under the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein, and so the quality of leadership leaves a little to be desired.

“The sergeants are not used to giving orders, and they're afraid of annoying their officers,” said Lieutenant Virgile Perez.

As for the officers, they're “fairly competent, but don't have the skills to move their forces, but they're going to learn to do that,” said Blunck.

Visiting Iraq on Tuesday, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said US-led foreign troops would be able to leave the country only when Iraqi forces were ready to assume responsibility for security themselves.

The 116th Brigade commander, Brigadier General Alan Gayhart, said there is still work to be done before handing over to Iraqi forces.

“We have to bring the insurgency level down enough for local forces to take over security, and when we leave there will still be a lot of bad guys around.”

Gayhart said Iraqi forces taking over in the Kirkuk area by July was “an attainable goal,” but to the west of the Tamim province “there's still much to do because there's lots of insurgency.”


Well brad, it looks like the French even see progress is being made, maybe that's why you don't see the doom and gloom you want to see.
Marine

Iraqi National Guard recruits on Saturday fire live ammunitions during training by US soldiers in Baghdad (AP photo by Jerome Delay)
Gabrielle
http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/1202827.htm

Watch these two free RealPlayer videos online for a good idea of why there's no TV coverage on the worsening situation in Iraq.
SFC_White
Here is some real news from my peers on the ground... you can spin it any way you want:

http://www.civilaffairsassoc.org/caa_Winter_2005_color.pdf
Frenchy
Good read Sarge!...Thanks.
flydangler
QUOTE(SFC_White @ Apr 20 2005, 05:55 PM)
Here is some real news from my peers on the ground...  you can spin it any way you want:

http://www.civilaffairsassoc.org/caa_Winter_2005_color.pdf
For some reason methinks most of the civil affairs stuff in msm gets buried deep in the back, if reported on at all, eh?

Thanks for posting it, 'twas a good read! 'Twould seem to go hand in hand with some first hand reports from folks stationed in Iraq some of us been reading elsewhere. You might enjoy them too, eh?
Frenchy
QUOTE(flydangler @ Apr 20 2005, 06:32 PM)
'Twould seem to go hand in hand with some first hand reports from folks stationed in Iraq some of us been reading elsewhere. You might enjoy them too, eh?
*


Does sound similar to the posts by two fine young people.
Brookie
QUOTE(Stephen @ Apr 20 2005, 07:35 PM)
Does sound similar to the posts by two fine young people.
*



Good news and bad news alike doesnt come close to the OJ type story of the month.

Terry Schiavo, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, the dying Pope, the dead Pope, the new Pope.
big sky brad
On teevee last night they reported that more car bombs went off in Iraq yesterday than since the start of the war.

An assassination attempt was made on Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq, yesterday as well.

Maybe you guys missed all that.
ghostgovt
This is before the hot and heavy malfunctions of the Iraq War started. The news had to really dumb down this past year to maintain the Neocon dream with BushCo's propaganda.



http://bg.broadcastengineering.com/ar/broa...ttpwwwhousegov/

The politics of TV war coverage

Weekly e-newsletter, Mar 23 2003

If it weren't difficult enough to master the technology of reporting combat under the most primitive field conditions, where such gear as the ubiquitous videophone has worked unpredictably at best, reporters covering the American war in Iraq are getting increased vocal scrutiny from congressional viewers back home.

A dozen Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), questioned the government's policy of "embedding" reporters with U.S. troops in Iraq. The pro-war forces would like to see media censorship, while those desiring more objective news coverage wonder if reporters under the thumb of the Pentagon will be free to report what actually happens to viewers back home.

Others wonder if the major American television networks, seeking media ownership changes from the FCC, will dare play hardball with an administration that has a heavy hand over the broadcast industry's economic destiny.

The House members complained about a March 10 report by Peter Jennings on ABC's World News Tonight in which he interviewed soldiers with questions the Republicans said were "highly inappropriate," including "hypothetical situations regarding combat, enemy responses and casualties."

The Congressmen wrote to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asking him to explain how current policies toward the media differ from those of Desert Storm; how "subjecting anxious young troops to questions relating to combat deaths and possible enemy responses serve to foster a better public perception;" and why the media was not being censored.
Marine
The_Bammo
American Media Everywhere

By Baghdad Burning

03 April, 2005
Baghdad Burning


You wake up in the morning. Brush your teeth. Splash the sleep out of your eyes and head for the kitchen for a cup of coffee or tea and whatever is available for breakfast.

You wander to the living room and search for the remote control. It is in its usual place- stuck inexplicably between the sofa cushions. You turn on the television and stand there flipping from one channel to the other, looking for a news brief or something that will sum up what happened during those six hours you slept. You finally settle on the pleasant face on the screen- the big hair, bright power suit, capped teeth and colorful talons- blandly reading the news. The anchoress is Julie Chan. The program is CBS’s The Early Show (Live from Fifth Avenue!).

Guess the nationality of the viewer above. Three guesses. American? No. Canadian? No. British? Japanese? Australian? No, no and no. The viewer is Iraqi… or Jordanian… or Lebanese… or Syrian… or Saudi… or Kuwaiti… or… but you get the picture.

Two years ago, the major part of the war in Iraq was all about bombarding us with smart bombs and high-tech missiles. Now there’s a different sort of war- or perhaps it’s just another phase of the same war. Now we’re being assailed with American media. It’s everywhere all at once.

It began with radio stations like Voice of America which we could access even before the war. After the war, there were other radio stations- ones with mechanical voices that told us to put down our weapons and remain inside our homes, ones that fed us American news in an Iraqi dialect and ones that just played music. With satellite access we are constantly listening to American music and watching American sitcoms and movies. To be fair- it’s not just Iraq that is being targeted- it’s the whole region and it’s all being done very cleverly.

Al-Hurra, the purported channel of freedom, is the American gift to the Arab world. What they do is show us translated documentaries about certain historical events (American documentaries) or about movie stars (American stars) or vacation spots. Throughout this, there are Arab anchors giving us the news (which is like watching Fox in Arabic). It’s news about the Arab world with the American twist.

Our new “national” channels are a joke. One of the most amusing, in a gruesome sort of way, is Al-Iraqiya. It’s said to be American sponsored but the attitude is decidedly pro-Iran, anti-Sunni. There’s a program where they parade ‘terrorists’ on screen for us to see in an attempt to show us that our National Guard are not only good at raiding homes and harassing people in the streets. The funny thing about the terrorists is that the majority of them have “Sunni” names like Omar and Othman, etc. They admit to doing things such as having sexual intercourse in mosques and raping women and the whole show is disgusting. Iraqis don’t believe it because it’s so obviously produced to support the American definition of the Iraqi, Sunni, Islamic fanatic that it is embarrassing. Couldn’t the PSYOPS people come up with anything more subtle?

Then you have the whole MBC collection. MBC is actually financed by Saudi Arabia, but based in Dubai, as far as I know. They have several different channels. It started out with the original MBC which was a mainly Arabic channel that was harmless enough. It showed some talk shows, debates and Egyptian movies with an occasional program on music or style.

Then we were introduced to MBC’s Al-Arabia- a news channel which was meant to be the Saudi antidote to Al-Jazeera. Simultaneously, we were accessing MBC’s Channel 2, which is a channel that shows only English movies and programs. The programs varied from talk shows like Oprah, to sitcoms like Friends, Third Rock from the Sun and Seinfeld. Earlier this year, the MBC did a mystifying thing. They announced that Channel 2 was going to be made a 24-hour movie channel which would show all sorts of movies- old Clint Eastwood cowboy movies, and newer movies like “A Beautiful Mind”, etc. The programs and sitcoms would be transferred to the new MBC Channel 4.

Personally, I was pleased with the change at first. I’m not big on movies and it was nice to know our favorite sitcoms and programs would all be accessible on one channel without the annoyance of two-hour movies. I could turn on Channel 4 at any time and expect to find something interesting or humorous that would end within 30-60 minutes.

The first time I saw 60 Minutes on MBC 4, it didn’t occur to me that something was wrong. I can’t remember what the discussion was, but I remember being vaguely interested and somewhat mystified at why we were getting 60 Minutes. I soon found out that it wasn’t just 60 Minutes at night: It was Good Morning, America in the morning, 20/20 in the evening, 60 Minutes, 48-Hours, Inside Edition, The Early Show… it was a constant barrage of American media. The chipper voice in Arabic tells us, “So you can watch what *they* watch!” *They* apparently being millions of Americans.

The schedule on MBC’s Channel 4 goes something like this:

9 am – CBS Evening News
9:30 am – CBS The Early Show
10:45 am – The Days of Our Lives
11:20 am – Wheel of Fortune
11:45 am – Jeopardy
12:05 pm – A re-run of whatever was on the night before – 20/20, Inside Edition, etc.

And the programming continues…

I’ve been enchanted with the shows these last few weeks. The thing that strikes me most is the fact that the news is so… clean. It’s like hospital food. It’s all organized and disinfected. Everything is partitioned and you can feel how it has been doled out carefully with extreme attention to the portions- 2 minutes on women’s rights in Afghanistan, 1 minute on training troops in Iraq and 20 minutes on Terri Schiavo! All the reportages are upbeat and somewhat cheerful, and the anchor person manages to look properly concerned and completely uncaring all at once.

About a month ago, we were treated to an interview on 20/20 with Sabrina Harman- the witch in some of the Abu Ghraib pictures. You know- the one smiling over faceless, naked Iraqis piled up to make a human pyramid. Elizabeth Vargus was doing the interview and the whole show was revolting. They were trying to portray Sabrina as an innocent who was caught up in military orders and fear of higher ranking officers. The show went on and on about how American troops never really got seminars on Geneva Conventions (like one needs to be taught humanity) and how poor Sabrina was being made a scapegoat. They showed the restaurant where she worked before the war and how everyone thought she was “such a nice person” who couldn’t hurt a fly!

We sat there watching like we were a part of another world, in another galaxy. I’ve always sensed from the various websites that American mainstream news is far-removed from reality- I just didn’t know how far. Everything is so tame and simplified. Everyone is so sincere.

Furthermore, I don’t understand the worlds fascination with reality shows. Survivor, The Bachelor, Murder in Small Town X, Faking It, The Contender… it’s endless. Is life so boring that people need to watch the conjured up lives of others?

I have a suggestion of my own for a reality show. Take 15 Bush supporters and throw them in a house in the suburbs of, say, Falloojeh for at least 14 days. We could watch them cope with the water problems, the lack of electricity, the check points, the raids, the Iraqi National Guard, the bombings, and- oh yeah- the ‘insurgents’. We could watch their house bombed to the ground and their few belongings crushed under the weight of cement and brick or simply burned or riddled with bullets. We could see them try to rebuild their life with their bare hands (and the equivalent of $150)…

I’d not only watch *that* reality show, I’d tape every episode.

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-burning030405.htm


Marine
The_Bammo
How free press is fading in US

April 26, 2005


Each time I visit the US I am struck by the lack of serious news on its many television channels and newspapers. The media here clearly follows the dictum "if it bleeds it leads".

In other words, news is not about informing or educating people, but simply entertaining them. This state of affairs, I have realised, is neither accidental nor incidental. It is deliberate; indeed, inevitable.

Inevitable, because it is a function of the business model the country has adopted for its media, much like the rest of its public works. It has deregulated the media completely; in other words, there are no public duty functions of the media the government can or must support.

Free from the "clutches" of the state, over the years, the rules of the market have prevailed in the media. The weak are weeded out and the mighty become mightier.

In 1983, 50 corporations comprised the US media; by 2004, five. In other words, the world's oldest democracy, and one that promotes democracy as a religion across the globe, is informed and educated by five corporations that owe their allegiance to the profits of their shareholders.

For profit and pay, corporations slash funding for hard-core news functions. The Pew Research Centre, a Washington-based think tank, has found that between 1994 and 2001, radio stations lost 57 per cent of their news staff, while network news correspondents declined by more than a third since the 1980s.

This led directly to declining quality in news reporting, translating into a serious credibility crisis with readers. Pew found that over 35 to 45 per cent of the people they surveyed categorically said that they believe nothing they see or hear in print or on television.

The crisis goes deeper than erosion of trust. The fact that people do not believe the media means fewer people tune in. Declining audiences lead to further desperation in the business rooms to keep ratings high and the money coming in.

In all this, what is worst is that the idea of a free press has been defeated. For one, the model, built on consolidation and scale, denies opportunity to competition: there cannot be independent views, let alone diverse views.

Second, the model, with its financial imperatives, is as vulnerable today to influence from the state, or corporations, as the one it replaced.

It is always argued that governments must not finance or run media; it becomes their propagandist. True. But what happens when government uses the influence of money or power to change the propaganda of the day?

Just last year, the two most respected newspapers in the US, the New York Times and the Washington Post, both accepted publicly that they had succumbed to biased reporting of the Iraq war.

More recently, it was found the US media was using "feed" -- stories prepared by government and published as independent news stories.

What is surprising then to learn is that this handout-driven media is then also poached by corporate interests. Inevitable, as I said before.

But what is even more inevitable, then, is that a compromised media will compromise democracy. The media has more than a functional role of contributing to the service sectors of economies.

It has the role to make democracies functional. In other words, its decimation is the decimation of democracy.

Why am I so obsessed by the media in the US? The problem is that we are slowly (sometimes not so slowly) moving towards the favoured US model of media enterprise. Today, the media -- particularly the electronic media -- is more and more unregulated.

The state has increasingly withdrawn. Its own public broadcaster ? Doordarshan -- is increasingly inept in challenging the market. The state's role as a propagandist is rightly condemned as the market takes over the reins of opinion-making in the country.

The media is beginning to cater to audiences that can pay. This will leave out of its ambit what does not matter and those who do not matter.

That would be all right, if the people who did not matter really did not exist. It is true that the middle-class in India -- the media's clientele -- is growing. Market watchers love to say there are 200 million people raring to shop till they drop.

But this hides the fact that there are still over 800 million others who can't shop but can certainly drop. What happens to the news about their everyday world? How will it be reported? Why should it be reported at all?

Let us be clear that an undermined press is also not good for the rich. The fact is that the media plays a watchdog's role in regulating and mitigating the adverse impacts of growth.

If its role stands compromised, so does its ability to discharge this function. And of keeping democracy functional. This will, ultimately, hurt all of us. A stooge is a stooge.

And it makes a fool of us all. So it is that we must find the balance between the market and public interest in our media. Fast.

http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2005/apr/26guest2.htm
The_Bammo
Guardsmen Say They're Facing Iraq Ill-Trained


Troops from California describe a prison-like, demoralized camp in New Mexico that's short on gear and setting them up for high casualties.


By Scott Gold, Times Staff Writer


DOÑA ANA RANGE, N.M. — Members of a California Army National Guard battalion preparing for deployment to Iraq said this week that they were under strict lockdown and being treated like prisoners rather than soldiers by Army commanders at the remote desert camp where they are training.

More troubling, a number of the soldiers said, is that the training they have received is so poor and equipment shortages so prevalent that they fear their casualty rate will be needlessly high when they arrive in Iraq early next year. "We are going to pay for this in blood," one soldier said.

They said they believed their treatment and training reflected an institutional bias against National Guard troops by commanders in the active-duty Army, an allegation that Army commanders denied.

The 680 soldiers of the 1st Battalion of the 184th Infantry Regiment were activated in August and are preparing for deployment at Doña Ana, a former World War II prisoner-of-war camp 20 miles west of its large parent base, Ft. Bliss, Texas.

Members of the battalion, headquartered in Modesto, said in two dozen interviews that they were allowed no visitors or travel passes, had scant contact with their families and that morale was terrible.

"I feel like an inmate with a weapon," said Cpl. Jajuane Smith, 31, a six-year Guard veteran from Fresno who works for an armored transport company when not on active duty.

Several soldiers have fled Doña Ana by vaulting over rolls of barbed wire that surround the small camp, the soldiers interviewed said. Others, they said, are contemplating going AWOL, at least temporarily, to reunite with their families for Thanksgiving.

Army commanders said the concerns were an inevitable result of the decision to shore up the strained military by turning "citizen soldiers" into fully integrated, front-line combat troops. About 40% of the troops in Iraq are either reservists or National Guard troops.

Lt. Col. Michael Hubbard of Ft. Bliss said the military must confine the soldiers largely to Doña Ana to ensure that their training is complete before they are sent to Iraq.

"A lot of these individuals are used to doing this two days a month and then going home," Hubbard said. "Now the job is 24/7. And they experience culture shock."

But many of the soldiers interviewed said the problems they cited went much deeper than culture shock.

And military analysts agree that tensions between active-duty Army soldiers and National Guard troops have been exacerbated as the war in Iraq has required dangerous and long-term deployments of both.

The concerns of the Guard troops at Doña Ana represent the latest in a series of incidents involving allegations that a two-tier system has shortchanged reservist and National Guard units compared with their active-duty counterparts.

In September, a National Guard battalion undergoing accelerated training at Ft. Dix, N.J., was confined to barracks for two weeks after 13 soldiers reportedly went AWOL to see family before shipping out for Iraq.

Last month, an Army National Guard platoon at Camp Shelby, Miss., refused its orders after voicing concerns about training conditions and poor leadership.

In the most highly publicized incident, in October, more than two dozen Army reservists in Iraq refused to drive a fuel convoy to a town north of Baghdad after arguing that the trucks they had been given were not armored for combat duty.

At Doña Ana, soldiers have questioned their commanders about conditions at the camp, occasionally breaking the protocol of formation drills to do so. They said they had been told repeatedly that they could not be trusted because they were not active-duty soldiers — though many of them are former active-duty soldiers.

"I'm a cop. I've got a career, a house, a family, a college degree," said one sergeant, who lives in Southern California and spoke, like most of the soldiers, on condition of anonymity.

"I came back to the National Guard specifically to go to Baghdad, because I believed in it, believed in the mission. But I have regretted every day of it. This is demoralizing, demeaning, degrading. And we're supposed to be ambassadors to another country? We're supposed to go to war like this?"

Pentagon and Army commanders rejected the allegation that National Guard or reserve troops were prepared for war differently than their active-duty counterparts.

"There is no difference," said Lt. Col. Chris Rodney, an Army spokesman in Washington. "We are, more than ever, one Army. Some have to come from a little farther back — they have a little less training. But the goal is to get everybody the same."

The Guard troops at Doña Ana were scheduled to train for six months before beginning a yearlong deployment. They recently learned, however, that the Army planned to send them overseas a month early — in January, most likely — as it speeds up troop movement to compensate for a shortage of full-time, active-duty troops.

Hubbard, the officer at Ft. Bliss, also said conditions at Doña Ana were designed to mirror the harsh and often thankless assignments the soldiers would take on in Iraq. That was an initiative launched by Brig. Gen. Joseph Chavez, commander of the 29th Separate Infantry Brigade, which includes the 184th Regiment.

The program has resulted in everything from an alcohol ban to armed guards at the entrance to Doña Ana, Hubbard said.

"We are preparing you and training you for what you're going to encounter over there," Hubbard said. "And they just have to get used to it."

Military analysts, however, questioned whether the soldiers' concerns could be attributed entirely to the military's attempt to mirror conditions in Iraq. For example, the soldiers say that an ammunition shortage has meant that they have often conducted operations firing blanks.

"The Bush administration had over a year of planning before going to war in Iraq," said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has acted as a defense lawyer in military courts. "An ammunition shortage is not an exercise in tough love."

Turley said that in every military since Alexander the Great's, there have been "gripes from grunts" but that "the complaints raised by these National Guardsmen raise some significant and troubling concerns."

The Guard troops in New Mexico said they wanted more sophisticated training and better equipment. They said they had been told, for example, that the vehicles they would drive in Iraq would not be armored, a common complaint among their counterparts already serving overseas.

They also said the bulk of their training had been basic, such as first aid and rifle work, and not "theater-specific" to Iraq. They are supposed to be able to use night-vision goggles, for instance, because many patrols in Iraq take place in darkness. But one group of 200 soldiers trained for just an hour with 30 pairs of goggles, which they had to pass around quickly, soldiers said.

The soldiers said they had received little or no training for operations that they expected to undertake in Iraq, from convoy protection to guarding against insurgents' roadside bombs. One said he has put together a diary of what he called "wasted days" of training. It lists 95 days, he said, during which the soldiers learned nothing that would prepare them for Iraq.

Hubbard had said he would make two field commanders available on Tuesday to answer specific questions from the Los Angeles Times about the training, but that did not happen.

The fact that the National Guardsmen have undergone largely basic training suggests that Army commanders do not trust their skills as soldiers, said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. That tension underscores a divide that has long existed between "citizen soldiers" and their active-duty counterparts, he said.

"These soldiers should be getting theater-specific training," Segal said. "This should not be an area where they are getting on-the-job training. The military is just making a bad situation worse."

The soldiers at Doña Ana emphasized their support for the war in Iraq. "In fact, a lot of us would rather go now rather than stay here," said one, a specialist and six-year National Guard veteran who works as a security guard in his civilian life in Southern California.

The soldiers also said they were risking courts-martial or other punishment by speaking publicly about their situation. But Staff Sgt. Lorenzo Dominguez, 45, one of the soldiers who allowed his identity to be revealed, said he feared that if nothing changed, men in his platoon would be killed in Iraq.

Dominguez is a father of two — including a 13-month-old son named Reagan, after the former president — and an employee of a mortgage bank in Alta Loma, Calif. A senior squad leader of his platoon, Dominguez said he had been in the National Guard for 20 years.

"Some of us are going to die there, and some of us are going to die unnecessarily because of the lack of training," he said. "So I don't care. Let them court-martial me. I want the American public to know what is going on. My men are guilty of one thing: volunteering to serve their country. And we are at the end of our rope."


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/l...ack=1&cset=true

Marine
Akron, Ohio, native cares for Marines while deployed to Iraq
Submitted by: 2nd Marine Division
Story Identification #: 200542375551
Story by Cpl. Ken Melton



HADITHA DAM, Iraq (April 23, 2005) -- Most people begin thinking about retirement by the time they reach 50 years old. Being in or around a combat environment would likely be the last thing they would be considering. For one 57-year-old hospital corpsman with 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, age will not slow him down.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Paul G. Nutter, a hospital corpsman from Akron, Ohio, is overseas and serving his country for a second time. This time though he is with a different service.

Nutter graduated from Akron-Butchel High School in 1966 where he won the regional 100-yard backstroke and 50-yard individual medley events in 1965 and 1966.

Upon graduating Nutter wanted to do something different instead of going to school or working at the local factory.

"My uncle was a Marine veteran of World War II. He inspired with my decision to go with the best," Nutter said. "So I joined the Corps."

In the Corps, Nutter served as an infantryman with Force Recon and participated in the Easter Offense in Hue City.

"This was the first time that we had ever fought house-to-house and street-to-street," Nutter stated. "The MOUT (Military Operations Urban Terrain) training that Marines go through today is a result of that."

After serving eight years in the Marine Corps, reaching the rank of gunnery sergeant, Nutter returned to civilian life. Returning from serving his country, he found himself continuing to serve those in need by becoming a fireman and paramedic. During this time he also attended Akron University and graduated with an Associate's Degree in Gerontology in 1978.

In 1990 he became a full-time paramedic and decided to serve his nation again, but this time he choose a different Corps.

"I joined the Naval Reserves as a field corpsman right at the start of the Gulf war," Nutter said. "I wanted to be able to help my fellow Marines with the knowledge I had gained from my civilian life experience."

While he didn't get the chance to deploy then, he kept his skills sharp so if he were ever called upon he would be ready.

As Operation Iraqi Freedom rolled into its third year, he received his chance to deploy in support of the Marines. In March he found himself in Iraq with the Marines of 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment.

Though his wife has concerns for his safety due to his age, Nutter knows the Marines around him will keep him safe.

"My wife worries more now because of my age than she did when I was deployed in '66. We were just dating back then," He explained. "I know that everything will be alright as long as the Marines are here and the corpsman are here to keep them healthy."

Nutter has served 23 years in the military and is the oldest service member attached to the battalion. He plans to retire after his mission here.

"I've seen a lot, done a lot and made a difference over the past few decades. I never had any regrets as long as I know I helped keep the Marines and the Naval Corps going strong," Nutter finished.
Desron
An excerpt from an article in an earlier post:

QUOTE
Even Christiane Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, announced on national television that her own network was censuring her journalism.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/212320_jamail17.html

That isn't exactly true. Here's a link to where she's talking about the self-censorship that CNN did and an excerpt from the article:

QUOTE
Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/aricle4713.htm
ghostgovt
As if the news of these wars wasn't already censored enough, I could tell in the last few weeks that it's really hit the ice chest. I imagine BushCo is preparing for the 'next adventures' coming soon to our nation and the rest of the world. We've been Hollywooded!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/19/14645/5662

Significant Media Self-Censorship on Iraq
by Chris Bowers

What we always suspected turns out to be exactly true:
Many media outlets self-censored their reporting on the Iraq invasion because of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content, according to a survey of more than 200 journalists by American University's School of Communications.

The study, released Friday, also determined that "vigorous discussions" about what and where to publish information and images were conducted at media outlets and, in many cases, journalists posted material online that did not make it to print. <p. One of the most significant findings was "the amount of editing that went into content after it was gathered but before it was published," the study stated. Of those who reported from Iraq, 15% said that on one or more occasions their organizations edited material for publication and they did not believe the final version accurately represented the story.<p> Of those involved in war coverage who were in newsrooms and not in Iraq, 20% said material was edited for reasons other than basic style and length.

. Some 42% of those polled said they were discouraged from showing photographic images of dead Americans, while 17% said they were prohibited. Journalists were also discouraged from showing pictures of hostages, according to 36% of respondents, while only 3% reported being prohibited from showing them.<p[> American University professors MJ Bear and Jane Hall conducted the survey of 210 journalists from the United States and other countries, who completed the anonymous, online questionnaire in September and October 2004.(...)

Although the questions covered events from the beginning of the war through September 2004 -- the first 15 months of the occupation -- it focused primarily on decision-making during major events such as the release of the Abu Ghraib prison photographs and the images showing the deaths of four American contractors in Fallujah.(...)

Among respondents who were in Iraq, 27% said their organization had prior rules in place about what they would or would not publish, and 31% of those who were based in newsrooms said their organization had prior rules. Coverage sensitivity focused more on the type of images published.

Among those who did not have such rules in place, 39% reported being unable to show images of dead Americans at some point, while 22% said they were not allowed to show images of hostages at times.
Desron
QUOTE(ghostgovt @ May 18 2005, 07:40 AM)
As if the news of these wars wasn't already censored enough, I could tell in the last few weeks that it's really hit the ice chest. I imagine BushCo is preparing for the 'next adventures' coming soon to our nation and the rest of the world. We've been Hollywooded!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/19/14645/5662

Significant Media Self-Censorship on Iraq
by Chris Bowers

What we always suspected turns out to be exactly true:
Many media outlets self-censored their reporting on the Iraq invasion because of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content, according to a survey of more than 200 journalists by American University's School of Communications.

The study, released Friday, also determined that "vigorous discussions" about what and where to publish information and images were conducted at media outlets and, in many cases, journalists posted material online that did not make it to print. <p. One of the most significant findings was "the amount of editing that went into content after it was gathered but before it was published," the study stated. Of those who reported from Iraq, 15% said that on one or more occasions their organizations edited material for publication and they did not believe the final version accurately represented the story.<p> Of those involved in war coverage who were in newsrooms and not in Iraq, 20% said material was edited for reasons other than basic style and length.

. Some 42% of those polled said they were discouraged from showing photographic images of dead Americans, while 17% said they were prohibited. Journalists were also discouraged from showing pictures of hostages, according to 36% of respondents, while only 3% reported being prohibited from showing them.<p[> American University professors MJ Bear and Jane Hall conducted the survey of 210 journalists from the United States and other countries, who completed the anonymous, online questionnaire in September and October 2004.(...)

Although the questions covered events from the beginning of the war through September 2004 -- the first 15 months of the occupation -- it focused primarily on decision-making during major events such as the release of the Abu Ghraib prison photographs and the images showing the deaths of four American contractors in Fallujah.(...)

Among respondents who were in Iraq, 27% said their organization had prior rules in place about what they would or would not publish, and 31% of those who were based in newsrooms said their organization had prior rules. Coverage sensitivity focused more on the type of images published.

Among those who did not have such rules in place, 39% reported being unable to show images of dead Americans at some point, while 22% said they were not allowed to show images of hostages at times.
*


What isn't mentioned in what I highlighted is that the question is for those whose organization had rules in place before the coverage or created ground rules after coverage began. Looking at the responses, only 28% said their organization had rules in place prior to coverage. 20% of those who didn't later developed ground rules.

Here's a link to the actual responses to the survey where one can see what I'm refering to:

http://www.zoomerang.com/reports/public_re...ID=L226Y8AH6TME

Here is a link to the American University School of Communication's article about the survey:

http://www.soc.american.edu/main.cfm?pageid=1235
ghostgovt
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1872.shtml

Media Held Guilty of Deception
Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Service, 15 February 2005


ROME, Feb 14 (IPS) - A peoples tribunal has held much of Western media guilty of inciting violence and deceiving people in its reporting of Iraq.*

The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), an international peoples initiative seeking the truth about the war and occupation in Iraq made its pronouncement Sunday after a three- day meeting. The tribunal heard testimony from independent journalists, media professors, activists, and member of the European Parliament Michele Santoro.


The panel that heard testimonies included Francois Houtart, director of the Tricontinental Centre in Belgium that has backed several peoples movements in Latin America, and Dr. Samir Amin, director of the Third World Forum in Dakar, Senegal. Dr. Haleh Afshar, who teaches politics and women's studies at the University of York in Britain, and Italian author and newspaper editor Ernesto Pallotta witnessed the proceedings.

"This is not simply an exercise to denounce the mainstream media for their bias and incompetence," said Dr. Tony Alessandrini, a human rights activist who has published several articles on the U.S. colonisation of Iraq. "These denunciations have been going on for months. Here in Rome, we must go further.."

Alessandrini, who helped organised the WTI added, "What we are being asked to consider is not simply media bias, but rather the active complicity of media in crimes that have been committed and are being committed on a daily basis against the people in Iraq."

Several experts gave strong testimony. Dr. Peter Philips, director of 'Project Censured' at Sonoma State University in California where he teaches media censorship provided taped testimony. He said that at no time since the 1930s has the United States been so close to "institutionalised totalitarianism", and added, "U.S. society has become the least informed, best entertained society in the world."

The WTI Rome session also heard testimony from Dr. David Miller from Scotland, author of 'Tell Me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq'. "This is about condemning journalistic complicity of war crimes," said Dr. Miller, who is also co-editor of Spinwatch, a group that monitors public relations and propaganda.

Miller said the Pentagon "does not recognise the concept of independent journalists, because they are providers of unfriendly information", and that mainstream media in the United States and in Britain was "complicit in furthering the selling of the invasion, and ongoing occupation. All studies conducted on mainstream media show dominance by government policies, and wartime coverage of TV news in the UK was generally sympathetic to the government's case.."

Fernando Suarez, who lost his son Jesus during the invasion of Iraq when he is said to have stepped on an illegal U.S. cluster bomb, also testified at the tribunal.

Suarez testified that he was first told by the Pentagon that his son died from a gunshot to the head, then that he died in an accident, and then that he had died in 'friendly fire'.

On inspecting his son's body Suarez said he discovered that his son had died from stepping on a cluster bomb.

"I never had the truth from them," Suarez added. "I found the truth, and the truth was very simple. On March 26 the Army dropped 20,000 cluster bombs in Iraq, but only about 20 percent exploded. The other 80 percent are in the cities and the schools and acting like mines."

Suarez said: "Bush sent my son because he said Iraq had illegal weapons, and my son died from an illegal American weapon, and nobody has spoken about this. The media will not talk about the illegal American weapons."

Several witnesses testified about media disinformation over the siege of Fallujah. They were presented copies of the award winning documentary 'Weapons of Mass Deception' by journalist and film-maker Danny Schechter, who is also executive editor of Mediachannel.org, an online media issues network.
Desron
QUOTE
Fernando Suarez, who lost his son Jesus during the invasion of Iraq when he is said to have stepped on an illegal U.S. cluster bomb, also testified at the tribunal.


The matter of cluster bombs being illegal is open to debate. The US has not ratified either of the 1977 Genva Convention Protocals nor has it signed the 1999 Ottawa Treaty.
ghostgovt
QUOTE(Desron @ May 19 2005, 06:51 AM)
The matter of cluster bombs being illegal is open to debate. The US has not ratified either of the 1977 Genva Convention Protocals nor has it signed the 1999 Ottawa Treaty.
*


I'm sure there are many Arabs who sees all actions and many uses of high tech weapontry by the US as illegal actions based on BushCo's invasion of Iraq. This is where and when a country acts without the UN's approval, many sees such actions as illegal at that point. We can reflect on the use of the 2 A bombs dropped in Japan during WWII. Because it was WWII, those horrendous bombs were not considered illegal, except, of course, by those in Japan and those who supported Japan's role in that war. Other's saw it as a way that helped end that war and was highly accepted.

So, as in this case, viewing it from BushCo's perspective, all acts in Iraq are legal, but viewing these actions by those non supportive of BushCo ... bingo.. illegal acts of war!
Marine
Chaplain stands alone among Corps' clergy
Submitted by: MCB Camp Pendleton
Story by: Computed Name: Lance Cpl. Renee Krusemark
Story Identification #: 2005519124735





MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON, Calif.
(May 19, 2005) -- He was a "lighthouse" for local Marines caught in one of the darkest chapters of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now, Navy Lt. Brian D. Weigelt has been singled out for service that outshined the work of every other chaplain in the Marine Corps -- all 275 of them.

Weigelt's service was particularly vital during a bloody seven-month deployment with 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. His actions there and on Camp Pendleton keyed his selection for the Military Chaplains' Association 2005 Distinguished Service Award.

The award is given yearly to one chaplain from each Department of Defense service branch.

"In terms of the award, I imagine it's one of the highest recognitions for chaplains," Weigelt said. Serving with Marines in combat was the last thing he thought he'd do as he mulled a career direction in high school, he added.

"He represents what all the 1st Marine Division chaplains have done," said Cmdr. Bill D. Devine, who shepherds the 1st Marine Division's chaplain corps. Ultimately, Devine nominated Weigelt "not only for what he did in the theater but also for what he did in the rear."

"I think it's a tremendous honor for our community," said Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Robert P. Palisted, a religious planner who worked with Weigelt during his deployment. "Of all the Marine chaplains, he's the one that got it," he said.

During the deployment, Weigelt not only performed religious services, but was available to 1,225 Marines for combat stress counseling.

"I did the same thing every chaplain does," Weigelt said. "We were there for the Marines to stay connected to each other."

That connection was particularly important on April 6, 2004, a bloody day for 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines. Thirteen Marines died that day. They were among 34 from the battalion who fell before Weigelt returned to the states.

"His job was to provide religious and moral support, but with all the casualties we took, he became a lighthouse and someone the Marines could look towards," Palisted said.

The battalion was on the firing line during the height of the insurgency. The heavy toll on Marines triggered a Marine offensive that quieted the enemy somewhat, but not before insurgent mortar fire, small-arms ambushes and roadside bombs had inflicted some of the biggest U.S. losses to date.

"There were times I felt threatened during indirect fire -- times we felt more vulnerable," Weigelt said.

Weigelt grew up on a farm near Fessenden, N.D., before he got a call to join the ministry. The specific call to become a chaplain came during his first year of seminary.

"If there was an award for someone who would have never served in combat with Marines, it would have been me -- in high school, in college, and during seminary school," he said.

Nonetheless, Weigelt was called to serve his country.

"It was a God-directed thing," he said. "At first, my interest was sparked by some of my peers who were in the Chaplain Candidate Program, but ultimately I felt drawn toward it."

Weigelt wasn't sure he'd made the right decision. But a call-up to active duty reassured him.

"This award is an affirmation to the direction I've taken," Weigelt said. "The recognition doesn't define who I am, it confirms it."

The clear calling to serve Marines didn't make it any easier to be away from his wife and daughter.

"I counted the days," Weigelt said. "It's hard to imagine anything measuring up to that."

He made the most of it by serving "one Marine at a time," he said

"He wanted to be there and to help," Palisted said. "He wasn't just trying to put bullets on his eval."

Weigelt received the award at the Military Chaplains' Association National Institute Banquet in Washington, D.C., April 16.

As a chaplain, Weigelt says he's "both an officer and a man of God." He wears both an officer insignia and the cross on opposite sides of his collar -- but one weighs more heavily on his character.

"This right side is just for the sake of knowing how much to pay me, but this is my true identity on the left side," he said, pointing to the small cross on his uniform collar

E-mail Lance Cpl. Krusemark at renee.krusemark@ usmc.mil.
Desron
QUOTE(ghostgovt @ May 19 2005, 01:41 PM)
I'm sure there are many Arabs who sees all actions and many uses of high tech weapontry by the US as illegal actions based on BushCo's invasion of Iraq. This is where and when a country acts without the UN's approval, many sees such actions as illegal at that point. We can reflect on the use of the 2 A bombs dropped in Japan during WWII. Because it was WWII, those horrendous bombs were not considered illegal, except, of course, by those in Japan and those who supported Japan's role in that war. Other's saw it as a way that helped end that war and was highly accepted. 

So, as in this case, viewing it from BushCo's perspective, all acts in Iraq are legal, but viewing these actions by those non supportive of BushCo ... bingo.. illegal acts of war!
*



Such an opinion would make every American serving in Iraq a war criminal. The "I was following orders" defense doesn't work. In an unlawful war, there is no difference between killing someone with an M-16 or killing them with a cluster bomb. Dead is dead.
piccadilly
[quote=Desron,May 19 2005, 12:50 PM]
Such an opinion would make every American serving in Iraq a war criminal.

The "I was following orders" defense doesn't work.
*

[/quote]
You aren't suggesting those americans in Iraq today are there as tourists or just visiting family, are you ?

By US definition, any Iraqi who steps on US ground without a visa would be considered not only illegal but also a terrorist, whether they're following orders or not.
[/quote]
ghostgovt
QUOTE(Desron @ May 19 2005, 11:50 AM)
Such an opinion would make every American serving in Iraq a war criminal. The "I was following orders" defense doesn't work. In an unlawful war, there is no difference between killing someone with an M-16 or killing them with a cluster bomb. Dead is dead.
*


I consider seeing it as servicemen following orders. If they refuse, they are jailed. I saw that chit happen during 'nam. I do consider this Iraq mess a war crime. I hope to hell BushCo gets theirs in the end and are brought to hard justice. Guess what? Being that I was drafted into the military and sent to 'Nam. I became a war criminal because I did show up. Ever try living with that? I have. If I refused I would have spent however long in prison and or even sentenced to death per desertion of post in the face of wartime after I was sworn in. So, yeah, go figure. Either we accept the truth for what it is or we pretend that it is all something else, just as BushCo does very well. Troops today in this Iraq mess are following orders per their military contract under BushCo. It's BushCo's action that has our troops in Iraq.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.