Okay, we're diving in right in tonight because I saw something online at lunch, actually, Sunny showed it to me, and I phoned C.I. to ask, "What is this nonsense?"
It's "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel from her Editor's Cut blog at The Nation. Follow along, kids, and let's see what we learn. She's addressing escalation which is a worthy topic so, so far, so good.
That takes about a paragraph and then she's providing examples.
First up, John Murtha. Let me repeat, John Murtha, the Democrat Congress member. Apparently the magazine's decided they like Murtha again . . . after attacking him throughout November when he was about to be made House Majority Leader, second in charge after Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In fact, Murtha was Pelosi's pick. But, as you probably remember, a character assassination was launched on Murtha and the House Majority Leader is a wishy-washy, spineless War cheerleader. So forgive me, after all the slam pieces on Murtha, for not being thrilled that in January, when it's no help to him at all, the editor (and publisher) of one of the magazines that especially went out of their way to attack him, now wants to give him a "shout out."
Where was The Nation when Murtha (and, in fact, the nation) needed them? Oh, that's right, they were sharpening their knives and driving them through his back.
Then it's time for shout outs to James McGovern and Dennis Kucinich. Enjoy that while you can because if 2003-2004 was any indication, 2007 is the only time Kucinich's presidential campaign will get any attention.
Then, another paragraph means another shout out. Ted Kennedy. Russ Feingold. Someone read their morning paper.
Here's where I really get ticked off. It's time for a shout out and she goes with the petition Appel for Redress. The Nation also ran a cover story on the petition. Petitions are apparently easier to cover than war resisters. This would have been the time, this post, for vanden Heuvel to mention a war resister, any war resister. But, like the magazine she steers, she can't bring herself to do so.
Now The Nation did run a sidebar, not an article, finally, in 2007, on Ehren Watada. But before you got to that page, you came across the magazine's first mention of Watada, where he was called a coward. Who is the coward? I think it's a magazine called The Nation.
Then it's time for her to pretend like she was around during Vietnam by shout-out to George McGovern. Then a paragraph on Win Without War, then on a group of organizations -- don't look for CODEPINK, remember the magazine elected to lecture/hector them and, of course, Katha Pollitt played dumb for a column as well when she pretended not to grasp why CODEPINK would birddog Hillary Clinton. (She played dumb, as Trina noted, when she decided to respond to a letter calling her out on that as well.) CODEPINK appears to have rubbed The Nation the wrong way because while the magazine was happy to give Hillary Clinton a pass on the war, CODEPINK wasn't. Other organizations get listed.
But the embarrassing silence on war resisters is what ticked me off.
I told C.I., who likes Katrina vanden Heuvel, that I wasn't going to be silent on this. (To C.I.'s credit, a heads up was noted in the snapshot today.) I'm tired of this nonsense.
This is exactly why I never give money to independent media. Being a 'trust fund baby,' I'm happy to open my checkbook for any charity I believe in but I don't support independent media (other than pledges for radio) and it is because I've lived long enough to see them repeatedly betray their audience over and over.
(The exception to that rule is if C.I. were to ask me to donate. In which case, my response would be, "How much and who do I make it out to?" That's due to the fact that we both donate to organizations that the other believes in and have for years.)
Now in 2004, I thought maybe the pattern was being broken. A war was raging but Naomi Klein's hard hitting pieces (on James Baker and on Mad Maddie Albright) ran in the paper. Klein was gone for most, if not all, of 2006 (she was finishing her book). In addition, Katha Pollitt, who is generaly a highly observant writer, was gone for a good chunk of the year (also working on her book). What did we see?
There's this idea that The Nation shouldn't be criticized because a woman is now in charge. (Katrina vanden Heuvel is not the first woman to run the magazine.) I agree with that if I'm seeing some effort to give women a chance but, as anyone who paid attention in 2006 noticed, women were hardly ever in the magazine. Possibly there were none willing to play party hacks who churned out one bad piece of journalism after another on how 'neat' whatever Democratic flavor of the month was?
My point here is that if vanden Heuvel expected leeway, she needed to do something to earn it. She didn't. With Pollitt and Klein on leave, women all but vanished from the magazine. At the same time, a whole crop of young males (White) popped up in the pages, issue after issue.
I think a magazine reflects the editor and/or publisher. In the case of The Nation, that would be Katrina vanden Heuvel. What do we have to show for it?
No woman columnist has been added -- not even while Klein and Pollitt were on leave. No effort appears to have been made (if it was, it was a failure because it produced no results) to give women an equal footing in terms of pieces assigned and/or published. So I don't buy the idea that because she's a woman, I need to give her a pass.
She's been in charge for some time now. I'm not going to even try to remember the announcement because she was in charge before the announcement (and when ___ slid over to CJR, that should have been noted immediately and not popping up to the magazine and CJR's embarrassment at right-wing blogs). She's had more than enough time to put her stamp on the magazine.
Either she's unable to do so or the magazine as it exists today is her vision of a weekly. (Or sometime weekly.) In which case, let me say loudly, her work doesn't cut it. Her limited vision doesn't cut it. The shameful silence on war resisters (which even people with the magazine complain about) doesn't cut it.
The mainstreaming of the magazine doesn't cut it. That includes the topics covered in articles and the way subjects are mainstreamed (some are made more liberal, more often they're made out to be far less liberal and come off like they just woke up the day before the interview and had a hint of liberalism in them). (I am biting my tongue on that but I'll assume many will get the point rather loudly.)
Like Rebecca, I think the "Sweet Victories" posts have been one embarrassment after another. That would be true regardless of who wrote them (or co-wrote them) but when it's coming from the editor and publisher, let me be clear on this, Marianne Williamson has that market covered. Others would be well advised to leave the 'Return to Love' pieces to her.
'Inspirational' is better left to a children's magazine and not a political weekly.
While the nation has fallen appart, vanden Heuvel has panned for fool's gold finding one reason to take comfort after another. Less reassurance of victories and hard hitting coverage of realities is what I expect from a political magazine and the editor of one.
I have had it with the magazine's silence on war resisters. The refusal to cover them, the refusal to take a stand. That's coming straight from the top and I will call Katrina vanden Heuvel out on it.
I will do because it's embarrassing and it's shameful. I will also do so because I knew her grandfather and he did give a damn about war resisters. I do not know the adult vanden Heuvel and only encountered the tot a few times. I wasn't impressed nor, I'm sure, was the tot impressed with me.
But when she became editor and then editor and publisher, I had some modest hopes for the magazine. They haven't been met. The magazine is an embarrassment that can't stop sniffing the crotches of any Democrat in office while ignoring serious problems in the country and in the world. The Nation should be leading and it's not even following. That's a huge embarrassment for everyone on the left and it's time the editor was called out on that.
The grandfather? Anytime C.I. and I encountered him, his first question was always what "cause" were we working on and he wasn't just interested in conversation, he would also donate money. While it's not her job to live up to her grandfather's view of the world, the fact that the magazine has so little of a view of the world (beyond vote! sign a petition!) is especially sad.
I'm not a huge fan of David Corn's but he does try to seriously address the war and I do read his columns. I read Katha Pollitt's and I can think of only two, out of years of reading, where I disagreed strongly with her. Patricia J. Williams is always worth reading. Otherwise?
Well, the magazine has what it bills as a "peace columnist" but he doesn't cover the peace movement. He doesn't cover demonstrations or oganizations. When Pollitt and Klein were both on leave, it would have been the perfect time to bring in a peace columnist who covered the peace movement. That didn't happen.
Time and again what needs to happen doesn't happen. Whether it's the rape and murder of Abeer or any other story that requires a strong response from the left, The Nation is silent. Lynne Stewart could have been hanged and I doubt seriously she would have gotten anymore than the very mild attention her case received (and received only at the start). A community member wrote a letter to The Nation that I doubt they'll publish. (It ran in the gina & krista round-robin and I will post it here if it doesn't show up in the magazine.) But it pefectly captured the abdication that has been The Nation.
So am I wrong? As C.I. would say, "I'd love to be proved wrong." I'd loveto have Sunny tell me tomorrow at work that she surfed the site and Katrina vanden Heuvel (finally) weighed in on war resisters. But throughout 2006 it hasn't happened and 2007 may have provided Watada as a sidebar but, before you could turn to that page, you first had to read that he was a coward. That's not cutting it. Until it does, I will call out the magazine and I will call out Katrina vanden Heuvel.
I've omitted any mention of Alexander Cockburn here because, as a CounterPunch reader, I see him as more of a part of that publication. When I was on the phone with C.I., the snapshot was being worked on and C.I. told me about the Ivan Brobeck article. As we both know, and I'll assume anyone reading does, CounterPunch has regularly covered war resisters, it's found time for the peace movement. Alexander Cockburn may have a column in The Nation but he's all CounterPunch in my mind. (Which I obviously find to be a superior magazine.)
The silence from The Nation, the wasting everyone's time, is hurting the movement. If Katrina vanden Heuvel wanted to turn the magazine into American Progress with a slight edge, congratulations to her because she has succeeded.
As bad as I can remember The Nation being over the years, I don't think it's ever been this bad. (A sentiment Ruth agrees with me on.) It's not cutting it and I'm not going to be silent or avoid calling out those responsible.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 10, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq with the discovery of over 70 corpses reported, Bully Boy goes primetime (you bought a flat screen for that?), the US military announces the deaths of three more US troops, US war resisters get attention (no, not from The Nation), and BuzzFlash interviews activist and author Antonia Juhasz.
Starting with the speech to get it out of the way. Later today (9:00 pm EST, 8:00 pm Central and 6:00 pm PST), Bully Boy will be making a speech where he will announce his intent to send more US troops into his illegal war despite having declared, on May 1, 2003, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Three years and eight months later, Bully Boy now wants to send more troops to Iraq. As Danny Schechter (News Dissector) wrote, "Today is the day when the Bush Administration takes its next big shot like some schoolyard bully determined that his way is the only way."
3018 US troops have died in Iraq and Bully Boy now wants to send more troops. Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks (Washington Post) reported today that when Bully Boy met with Nouri al-Maliki (finally) in Jordan, "Maliki did not ask for more American troops as part of a new Baghdad security plan he presented to Bush, U.S. officials said. Maliki's idea was to lower the U.S. profile, not raise it." But now Bully Boy wants to send more US troops.
Iraqis want foreign troops out of their country, as polls have consistently demonstrated, and The Lancet study estimated over 655,000 Iraqis have lost their lives during the illegal war. Now Bully Boy wants to send more troops.
On Democracy Now! today, one Iraqi, Abu Haider, voiced his opinion, "All the stances of America are indications of negative positions towards society and its citizens.Their decisions and credibility are negative. They damaged this country. They said that they are here to spread freedom and democracy in Iraqi society but they did nothing but bring terrorism. Now Bully Boy wants to send more troops. Abu Haider lives in Baghdad where most of the escalated troops will go (some, about a fifth, will also go to Al-Anbar Province).
The BBC World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds notes how the 'fresh start' (that's what the US administration is calling it) "has echoes of Vietnam in the belief that another push will get the job done" and notes five specific echoes -- "the realisation in Washington that it is not winning"; "trying to hand over responsibility to the local government in the midst of battle, not after it"; "belief by the US administration that more troops are an important part of the answer"; "opposite belief by others that the enterprise cannot work and that disengagement must be sought"; and ""in Vietnam too the president consulted and outside group -- they were called the Wise Men and, like the Iraq Study group, they too urged a policy designed to lead to withdrawal."
Speaking yesterday on The KPFA Evening News, Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights and co-host of WBAI's Law and Disorder) declared, "Basically we can look at this in a few ways. One is you [Congress] can cut off the funding and that they have a constitutional right to do. Secondly, they could pass a resolution under the war powers resolution that repeals the authorization to use force in Iraq I think [Ted] Kennedy's argument is something. There better argument in Congress is to say 'We repeal the Iraq War Resolution' -- that would take away the president's authority. So Congress has remedies here. The question is are the Democrats going to be willing to stand up and take them or are they just going to talk? Kennedy, obviously, is going to do more than talk."
Ratner was referring to US Senator Edward Kennedy's speech to the National Press Club yesterday (see yesterday's snapshot) where Kennedy called the illegal war in Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam" and spoke of "introducing legislation to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. My bill say that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation, unless and until Congress approves the President's plan." The speech can be found in full in Kate Phillip's blog post at the New York Times and Kathy Kiely's USA Today report on the speech contains links to the audio and video of it.
What Micheal Ratner was referring when he noted a second option the US Congress had is something that another Michael apparently slept through (Michael Gordon of the New York Times), the reaction to Tricky Dick's announcement that he would bomb Cambodia led to a Senate vote to repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was followed by House of Representatives doing the same.
As Kennedy and other grown ups, including US House Rep. and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, attempt to address Bully Boy's non-stop, illegal war of choice, Ron Elving (NPR) observes that: "Anti-war activists have gained ground -- both at the polls and in the polls -- over the past two months. A new Democratic majority is in place in Congress and surveys find well over half the public now wants to get the United States out of Iraq. Not one American in five supports the idea of sending more troops to fight there. Yet, before this month is over, opponents of the war will get a double does of disappointment" -- the first being Bully Boy's speech today and the second being, according to Elving, will be "the Democrats, empowered as the majority in House and Senate by dint of those November elections, will not be able to stop the greater troop committment."
Tom Hayden (Common Dreams) observes: "If and when the 20,000 Americans plunge into Baghdad neighborhoods, there will be dramatic television coverage of soldiers at risk. It is possible, though far from easy, to 'stabilize' a Baghdad neighborhood for several months or one year, carrying the surge into the next presidential cycle. The strategy fits the polling data showing only 21 percent of Americans favor immediate withdrawal, while the moderate middle might be open to an undefined new strategy if convinced it will shorten the war and bring the troops home. More likely, the ranks of the peace movement are likely to swell with people angry over the perceived betrayal by Bush of the November voter mandate. A failure by majority Democrats to prevent the escalation will convince more people to take to the streets or look to 2008 for a fix."
America Says NO Surge! President Bush is expected to give his "new direction in Iraq" speech this Wednesday, January 10th -- he wants to increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. We have to make it clear that Americans do NOT want more troops in Iraq and we have to act fast! True Majority has created a coalition called AMERICA SAYS NO. We will take to the streets together after Bush makes his expected call for escalation in Iraq. We need to stop this "surge" with a stronger surge of protest. Can you join an event this week and help stop the surge? Click here to find an event near you and if you can't find one create your own. Read our latest action alert for more details.
Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) speaks with US soldiers who, don't tell Bully Boy, don't see escalation as an answer in Iraq. Those who would like to listen to the Bully Boy's speech tonight or, at least, to hear an intelligent discussion of it, KPFA and WBAI will be carrying it live with Larry Bensky offering analysis and discussion with various guests which you can listen to online (free of charge, no quiz to take or membership to apply for). For those looking for something else to listen to . . .
In fact, the dispassionate tone of the "debate" about Iraq in The New York Times and on every television screen seems psychotically remote from the reality of what will happen if war actually occurs. We are talking about raining death down on human beings, about thousands and thousands of howling wounded human beings, dismembered corpses in pools of blood. Is this one of the "lessons of Vietnam" that people have learned--that the immorality of this unspeakable murdering must never be mentioned? That the discussion of murder must never mention murder, and that even the critics of murder must always criticize it because it turns out not to be in our own best interest? Must these critics always say that the murders would come at too high a price for us, would be too expensive, would unbalance the budget, hurt the economy, cause us to stint on domestic priorities; that it would lose us our friends, that it would create new enemies? Can we never say that this butchering of human beings is horrifying and wrong?
That is from Wallace Shawn's Fragments from a Diary (written in 2003) and was among the pieces performed on WBAI's Theater Special: THAW ON THE AIR which broadcast Monday night and which is now in the WBAI archives (for a limited time) -- Jonah tells us it's filed under "Home Fries," Monday, January 8th, 9:00 pm. Those interested in the broadcast but unable to listen can check out Rebecca's report on it.
Turning to news of war resistance, Robert Fantina (CounterPunch) writes of Ivan Brobeck. Yes, Ivan Brobeck -- the war resister independent media forgot. Or those who keep up. The Full Brobeck is a term the community uses to note what passes for coverage of war resisters in independent media -- so named when only KPFA's Flashpoints covered Brobeck when he returned to the US from Canada to turn himself on election day (November 6, 2006 -- day before the election -- is when the interview conducted by Nora Barrows-Friedman aired). Robert Fantina (CounterPunch) writes: "Lance Corporal Ivan Brobeck, Sergeant Ricky Clousing, Sergeant Kevin Benderman, Sergeant Camilo Mejia: each a veteran of the Iraq war, and each charged with desertion. Mr. Benderman, Mr. Mejia and Mr. Clousing were convicted, sentenced and have completed prison time. Mr. Brobeck is currently serving an 8-month sentence. Yet with government studies indicating that thousands of soldiers have deserted during the Iraq war, why are only a few charged, while so many others are basically ignored? This is not a new phenomenon. As communication has improved over the two centuries of America's life, the ability for war resisters to reach a wider audience has greatly increased. The four brave men listed above demonstrated their courage first on the battlefield. They then not only further showed their bravery by leaving the U.S. military -- a tremendously brave act in and of itself -- they went the additional step of speaking out publicly against the war. This, it seems, is what brought down the wrath of the U.S. government upon them."
In Peggy Got A Message For Me, From Jesus news: Wonderful article but can someone get it to The Nation -- with sections highlighted? ("Peggy Get . . ." line from Tori Amos' "Cooling" off To Venus And Back.) Elaine will be addressing that topic this evening at Like Maria Said Paz. That topic? The Nation's refusal to cover war resisters.
Meanwhile William Hughes (San Francisco Indymedia) reports that, in a recent speech, Daniel Ellsberg opposed the escalation option (that Bully Boy will be pimping in the Big Speech), opposed expanding the war and "lauded Lt. Ehren Watada for his principled stand against the Iraqi war." Ehren Watada is the first US officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Last week, a pre-trial hearing began which preceeds the planned February 5th court-martial. John Catalinotto (Workers World) reports that Camp Resistance is across from Fort Lewis (where Watada is stationed) and "plans to stay until the end of Lt. Watada's court-martial" while there will be "nationally coordinated demonstrations for Feb. 5, the day his court-martial is scheduled to open."
Information about Camp Resistance can be found in The Nation. Did you laugh at that idea? Me too. Seriously, information about Camp Resistance can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War which has a page for it and other actions entitled Iraq Veterans Against The War Deployed with photos and blog posts.
Watada and Brobeck are a part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Appeal for Redress is collecting signatures of active duty service members calling on Congress to bring the troops home -- the petition will be delivered to Congress next week (MLK day). [Yes, that is a federal holiday and, yes, Congress won't be in session.]
And remember that Lisa Brobeck is requesting people write her husband, war resister Ivan Brobeck, "so he is constantly reminded that he is not alone during this time in the brig and that he is supported in his brave and courages stand." The address:
LCPL Ivan S. Brobeck
MCB Quantico Brig
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, Virginia 22134
In Iraq today -- all was calm and peaceful -- or to judge by the US media it was. In
reality . . .
Reuters notes a car bombing in Mahmudiya that took one life and wounded three other people; a bombing in Tal Afar that killed the bomber, 4 other people and left 11 wounded; near Tal Afar, a bombing "killed a child and wounded three policemen and one civilian"; and a bombing in Kirkuk wounded three people. Abdelamir Hanun (AFP) reports four "wounded in two roadside bomb attacks" in Baghdad, "one of which also ruptured a water pipeline supplying the impoverished Shiite slum district of Sadr City." Mohhamed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the bomb that ruptured the water pipeline was on Al Kanat Street and that "the pipe was destroyed which led to the cut of the water supply to sadr city."
Abdelamir Hanun (AFP) reports: "Nine Iraqi Shiites coming home from Mecca after the annual hajj pilgrimage have been shot dead in cold blood by gunmen" amd also notes that "a woman and a male nurse" were shot dead in Mosul.
Abdelamir Hanun (AFP) notes that 60 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes that 8 corpses were discovered in Mosul, 4 in Mahaweel, 4 corpses were discovered in Qaim, and 1 in Iskandariya. (That's a total of 77 corpses discovered today.)
Today, the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier assigned to 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, died Tuesday as a result of injuries sustained from a gunshot wound while conducting combat operations in Diyala Province." And they announced: "One Soldier assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group and One Soldier assigned to 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division died Tuesday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province."
Meanwhile, Ross Bynum (AP) reports that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division is preparing for their third deployment to Iraq in four years: "The 3rd Infantry, which has about 19,000 troops, is the first Army division to be tapped for a third deployment to the war. Barely a year has passed since its soldiers returned from their last yearlong rotation."
And the slaughter of Haifa Street continues (see yesterday's snapshot). Leila Fadel and Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) note that "residents from the predominantly Sunni Muslim area and Sunni leaders said the American forces had been duped by Iraq's Shiite-dominated security forces into participating in a plan to drive Sunnis from the area." CBS and AP note that "Haifa Street is a broad, two-lane thoroughfare that stretches northwest from the Green Zone through the heart of Baghdad along the Tigris river. Apartment buildings of up to ten sotries high line the street, with retail space on the ground level." AFP notes that, today, "troops were out in force on the streets and most residents stayed indoors" and, most importantly, that the assault took place approximately one mile from the Green Zone. Steve Negus (Financial Times of London) notes Haifa Street "is virtually adjacent to the heavily fortified Green Zone".
Turning to the US, BuzzFlash interviews Antonia Juhasz (author of THE BU$H AGENDA which they are offering as a premium) on the topic of the illegal war:
BuzzFlash: You're saying that the war in Iraq was as much economic invasion as it was a militarily one.
Antonia Juhasz: Yes, the two most important chapters of my book cover the economic invasion of Iraq and the Middle East trade area and point to what I think are the heart of the problems. The Bush Administration is pushing aggressively forward on rewriting Iraq's oil infrastructure to allow greater control and access to U.S. corporations for its oil under the ground, for exploration and production. I believe that's what's keeping the Bush Administration in Iraq and pointed towards having the United States military remain in Iraq.
Iraq isn't the end. One month after the invasion, the Bush Administration announced plans to expand the Middle East as a free trade area. That free trade pact is moving along quickly, with individual countries making deals with the U.S. out of fear of economic or military retribution. Included in those agreements are increased access to those countries' oil.
The Democratic Congress is going to have to be forced to address these free trade agendas, both in Iraq and across the Middle East, and to reject them. The occupation of Iraq has to end, but not just the military occupation, also the corporate occupation. The United States cannot use the stick of the war to press its own economic agenda across the Middle East. The results will be just as devastating to the rest of the Middle East as they have been in Iraq, and, of course, reverberate back to the United States.
FYI, A Citizens' Hearings is being convened January 20-22 at Evergreen State College in Tacoma, Washington and Antonia Juhasz will be among those participating.
Others include Ann Wright, Denis Halliday, Daniel Ellsberg, Nadia McCaffrey, Darrell Anderson.
Finally, Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) take a look at the attacks on media (government attacks) in Iraq noting that the "press freedom index of the watchdog Reporters Without Borders" is lower now than it was before the start of the illegal war, the banning of journalists, the expelling of outlets (such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya) and being targeted "for reproting the growing resistance to the occupation."
ivan brobeckflashpointsnora barrows friedman
law and disorder
the washington postrobin wrightmichael abramowitzthomas e. ricks
wbaithawtheatres against war
the kpfa evening news
danny schechtertom hayden
like maria said pazsex and politics and screeds and attitude