Blood Spilt...Media As Guilty As Bush

From the White House to CBS

A Trail of American Blood

By Rev. WILLIAM E. ALBERTS

A classic denial of reality is seen in the defensive reactions of CBS "60 Minutes" reporter Scott Pelley in his September 23, 2007 interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Pelley's defensiveness is an attempt to deny the reality of an American foreign policy soaked in blood: "The American people believe . . . your country is a terrorist nation," and that "you have American blood on your hands," because "it is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and know-how are killing Americans in Iraq." Ahmadinejad responded that "American officials" were making that charge to divert attention from their failed policy in Iraq, a policy opposed by many Americans, and that he was "amazed" that Pelley, "representing a media and . . . a reporter" would "speak for . . . 300 million" Americans. Pelley repeated, "Many Americans believe that you have American blood on your hands." Scott Pelley and CBS do not want the American people to know who really has "American blood" on their hands.

CBS itself has "American blood" on its hands. On February 5, 2003, CBS's "60 Minutes II" presented a program designed to build public support for pre-emptive war against Iraq called, "The Case Against Saddam" [italics added]. "The Case" began with Secretary of State Colin Powell, fresh from his blatantly false, dishonorable UN presentation on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction that morning, telling host Dan Rather, "I spent most of the last four days going over every sentence in my statement. . . . What you see is the truth . . . I think I put forward a case today that said . . . there are many smoking guns."

CBS's "The Case Against Saddam" followed Secretary of State Powell with a clip of Saddam Hussein in a recent rare interview saying, "I tell you, as I have said on many occasions before, that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq whatsoever. And we challenge those who say the opposite to give the simplist proof. These weapons are not aspirin pills that one can have in his pockets."

"60 Minutes II" commentator Bob Simon then introduced CBS News consultant and Johns Hopkins University professor of Middle Eastern Studies Fouad Ajami "to help us make sense of Saddam's answers" [italics added]. Ajami responded, "The charm of Saddam Hussein. If you will, in a very perverse way, is this attempt to seem like a reasonable man." But he is not: as Ajami then explained, "Saddam . . . gets this softball question: 'Do you have weapons of mass destruction?' He says, 'you can't hide them.' Well, in fact we know you can hide them."

CBS News Consultant Fouad Ajami's "own judgment is that the people of Iraq will not fight for Saddam Hussein." His "own guess [is] that were we to enter Baghdad when the time comes to do so [italics added], it will be exactly a repeat of what happened in Kabal when the Americans came into Afghanistan and were greeted by kites and music and boom boxes, and people were glad to be rid of the Taliban."(Feb. 5, 2003)

Tragically for the lifeblood of Iraqi and US citizens alike, Fouad Ajami obviously was saying what he thought CBS and the Bush administration wanted to hear. There is no "music to anyone's ears in Afghanistan or Iraq today. In fact, a recent United Nation's report states that "violence in Afghanistan has surged nearly 30% this year and suicide bombings are inflicting a high toll on civilians." ("Afghan violence up 30 percent, UN says," by Jason Straziuso and Rahim Faiez, Associated Press, The Boston Globe, Oct. 3, 2007)

Nor were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, nor ties to the horrible attack against America on 9/11/01, as the Bush administration repeatedly charged to justify its fear-and-war-mongering invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is only ground soaked with much Iraqi and American blood.

Bob Simon ended "The Case Against Saddam" by saying "The interview is vintage Saddam." It was actually "vintage" CBS news that's fit to cover up the Bush administration's blood-soaked foreign policy for oil and empire. Blood for oil.

Who has "American blood" on their hands? Secretary of State Colin Powell's dramatic falsely-based indictment of a weapons of mass destruction "armed" Iraq before the UN was not only reported but affirmed by many in mainstream media. "Powell's briefing was not only breathtaking in scope but utterly convincing," Boston Globe colunist H.D.S. Greenway wrote in a piece called "A compelling case is made for action." (Feb. 7, 2003) "Powell has convinced me," was the title of syndicated columnist Mary McGrory's piece, "and I was as tough as France to convince," she wrote. (The Boston Globe, Feb. 8, 2003) New York Times writer William Safire's column hailed Powell's "proof of Saddam's cover-up" as "irrefutable and undeniable." (Feb. 6, 2003) A New York Times editorial said that "Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the United Nations and a global television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have." (Feb. 6, 2003). And there was New York Times writer Judith Miller taking falsehoods of US administration and military officials and Iraqi exiles and spinning terrifying front-page stories of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. (See "The New York Times' role in promoting war in Iraq," by Antony Loewenstein, Fairfax Digital, Mar. 23, 2004.)

Boston Globe media writer Mark Jurkowitz's piece entitled "Powell's UN speech proves persuasive for commentators" began, "Secretary of State Colin Powell's dramatic Feb. 5 presentation at the UN may not have convinced the French, German or Russians of the need to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. But is seemed to work wonders on opinion makers and editorial shakers in the media universe." Jurkowitz's conclusion was based on two studies of the editorials in many of the nation's largest newspapers before and after Powell's speech: one survey found "those considered 'war skeptics' plummeted from 29 to 11." (Feb. 13, 2003)

Who has "American blood" on their hands? Many mainstream media played a largely advocacy rather than an investigative role in the run-up to the Bush administration's criminal war of choice against Iraq. The following Boston Globe editorials, most written long before Secretary of State Powell's UN presentation, are believed to be typical of widespread uncritical dominant media acceptance and promotion of the Bush administration's "Case Against Saddam." "Bush was fittingly candid in saying that 'though all options are on the table,' the 'one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction.' In reality," the editorial continued, "Saddam already has large quantities of chemical and biological weapons [italics added]. (Mar. 15, 2002) "[Britian Prime Minister Tony] Blair's lucid truth [italics added] is that . . . the world cannot allow such a mass murderer to threaten the use of weapons of mass destruction." (Sept. 29, 2002) "The surest way to unveil his weapons of mass destruction[italics added] is to make certain [Hans] Blix [chief UN weapons inspector] brings knowledgeable Iraqi scientists and officials out of Iraq with their families so that they can tell the truth without fear. The international community can then free Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny." (Dec. 6, 2002) "The particular means for liberating Iraqis [from "Saddam's police state"] will be less important in the long run [italics added] than the character of the government that comes after Saddam's fall." (June 19, 2002) "If U.S. action in coming months leads to Saddam Hussein's overthrow, there will be jubilation in Iraq [italics added] that the monster who murdered and tortured so many people and ruined the life of entire generations is finally gone." (Oct. 21, 2002) "Nothing could mean more to the reputation of America in the world [italics added] than for Bush to keep his promise to support a democratic future for Iraqis after the long nightmare of Saddam's regime." (Mar. 18, 2003)

Who has "American blood" on their hands? The dominant uncritical daily widespread advance billing of many mainstream media was "Showdown with Iraq." A media image was presented of Saddam Hussein waiting in the desert at high noon with weapons of mass destruction hidden in the sand, ready to take on the deadliest "dead-or-alive" gun-fighting superpower in the West-and that superpower's British sidekick to boot. Coming soon to your living room television screen: the Mother of all reality shows. A predominantly pro-Bush administration American media then presented a "sanitized" war for our patriotic viewing, reading and listening pleasure. Nightly "shock and awe" bombs bursting in air, as entertaining "fireworks over Baghdad," on our television screens. With the blood-spattered lives of dead Iraqi men, women and children hidden under media-glamorized "precision" and "smart" bombs. The war-marketing slogan: "We aim to please!"

Who has "American blood" on their hands? In a pre-war Action Alert called "Do Media Know That War Kills?," Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) reveals the culpability of mainstream media: "Despite daily reports about the 'showdown' with Iraq, Americans heard very little from mainstream media about the most basic fact of war: People will be killed and civilian infrastructure will be destroyed, with devastating consequences for public health long after the fighting stops." FAIR found, "Since the beginning of the year, according to a search of the Nexis database (1/1/03 ­ 3/12/03), none of the three major television networks' nightly national newscasts ­ ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, or NBC Nightly News ­ have examined in detail what long-term impact war will have on humanitarian conditions in Iraq. They've also downplayed the immediate civilian deaths that will be caused by a U.S. attack." (Mar. 14, 2003)

The reality of "Showdown with Iraq": "people [continue being] killed and civilian infrastructure . . . destroyed, with devastating consequences for public health long after the fighting stops." Over a million Iraqi civilians dead, the country's life-sustaining infrastructure decimated; some four million citizens forced to flee as refugees inside and outside their country; a deadly massive civil war raging, triggered by the US-led invasion and occupation; over 3800 U.S. deaths confirmed and tens of thousands wounded in body, mind and spirit; ("Casualties in Iraq-2007, antiwar.com); the terrible waste of our nation's resources; and a Bush-administration-bred mercenary "Blackwater" mentality's indiscriminate killing of Iraqi people, further inflaming Iraqi and world opinion against America. A horrible, blood-soaked international American-made criminal war and occupation, seeking to be denied and hidden by a defensive foreign reporter of a bloodstained news outlet telling Iraq's neighboring president, "Many American believe that you have American blood on your hands."

"The Case Against Saddam." "Showdown with Iraq." "The Battle for Iraq." "The Struggle for Iraq" "America in Iraq" These and other mainstream media's palatable-for-public-consumption captions change. But they cannot make culpability for the criminal sacrifice of "American [and Iraqi] blood" disappear. Smoke and mirror captions of advocacy rather than investigative American mainstream press.

Who has "American blood" on their hands? As recently as a news conference in Chicago on July 7, 2006, President Bush repeated an outright lie in front of uncritical national and local reporters: "I have always said that it's important for an American president to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before the use of force. . . . All diplomatic avenues were exhausted, as far as I was concerned, with Saddam Hussein [italics added]. (Transcript, 'President Bush Holds a News Conference in Chicago," CQ Transcripts Wire washingtonpost.com, July 7, 2006)

Reporters could have had a field day with President Bush's falsehoods. He repeatedly justified his administration's pre-emptive war against Iraq by saying, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof-and the smoking gun-that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." ("President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat," Cincinnati, Ohio, The White House, Oct. 7, 2002). And three days before invading Iraq, he warned, "The danger is clear. Using chemical, biological or one day nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambition to kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other." ("President Bush Presents 48 Hour Ultimatum," Address to the Nation, The White House, Mar. 17, 2003)

"All diplomatic options were exhausted," President Bush could even get away with repeating to reporters over three years later. Over two months before Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, an Associated Press story quoted chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as saying, 'We have now been there [in Iraq] for some two months and been covering the country in ever widening sweeps and we haven't found any smoking guns. ("Blix Says No Smoking Guns Found in Iraq," by Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press, Jan. 9, 2003). Later Blix was reported to have "lamented" the aborting of the UN inspections by Bush's invasion of Iraq. A Boston Globe story quoted Blix as saying, "I don't think it is reasonable to close the door to inspections after three-and-a-half months." He "would have welcomed some months more. . . . While inspectors followed up leads from US intelligence," the story continued, "Blix said, 'I must regret we have not found the results in so many cases.' We certainly have not found any smoking guns." (Mar. 19, 2003)

"We cannot wait for the final proof-and the smoking gun." President Bush repeatedly charged to a receptive mainstream media that Saddam Hussein was playing "a game of deception" with the UN inspectors. Bush was playing a game of deception and not Hussein. The only weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq are America's.

Who has "American blood" on their hands? A glaring example of "news" that's "print to fit" was President Bush's orchestrated March 6, 2003 news conference shortly before his administration launched its war of choice. Typical of the controlled "give-and-take" was a question from a black woman reporter: "As the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the UN, how is your faith guiding you?" Bush replied, "I appreciate that question a lot." He then said, "My faith sustains me. Because I pray daily. I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength . . . I pray for peace. I pray for peace." (The New York Times, Mar. 7, 2003) Two weeks later the Bush administration unleashed its long-planned pre-emptive war against Iraq-with few in mainstream media asking to whom does President Bush pray. Bush then repeatedly used his god to justify and hide his administration's blood-drenched aggression against the Iraqi people: "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to every man and woman in the world." ("Acceptance speech to Republican Convention Delegates," The New York Times, Sept. 3, 2004) Tell that to the millions of Iraqi mothers and fathers and children being ground under by such "freedom." The idolatry of ideology and theology used to justify high crimes. It should be painfully obvious by now: President Bush's god has "American blood" on his hands-and so much Iraqi and other Muslim blood as well.

Reporters like Scott Pelley would find instructive certain comments of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. When Pelley asked Ahmadinejad, "What do you admire in President Bush?," the Iranian president hesitated, which led Pelley to say, "Well, Mr. Bush is, without question, a very religious man [italics added] for example, as you are. I wonder if there's anything that you've seen in President Bush that you admire." A disingenuous question by a reporter who knows Bush has condemned Ahmadinejad as a tyrant, called Iran part of an "axis of evil," and has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear power facilities-which he sees as hiding a nuclear weapon-"mushroom cloud" like he did Iraq. Ahmadinejad replied, "Well, is Mr. Bush a religious man?" "Very much so. As you are," Pelley responded. Ahmadinejad then asked the question American reporters should have been asking from the moment Bush said, "I pray daily . . . for peace," and two weeks later launched his administration's criminal war. Ahmadinejad responded:

What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter? What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Religion tells us all that you should respect the property, the life of different people. Respect human rights. Love your fellow man.

Pelley avoided Ahmadinejad's response to his assertion that "Mr. Bush is without question, a very religious man," by saying "I take it you can't think of anything you like about President Bush."

Scott Pelley's assertion that "Mr. Bush is without question, a very religious man," reveals an incredible lack of investigative skepticism and inquisitiveness.

In the face of the falsehoods underlying "The Case Against Saddam," and the bloodbath of "Showdown with Iraq," a needfully defensive Scott Pelley says to President Ahmadinejad, "But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world . . . You have American blood on your hands." And "want[ing] to be very direct and very clear," Pelley repeated, "Many Americans believe that you have American blood on your hands . . . Sir, forgive me, you're smiling," Pelley observed, "but this is a very serious matter to America." Ahmadinejad's reponse clearly indicates which one is in touch with reality and which is defending against it. "Well, it's serious for us as well. I daresay it's serious to everyone."

Ahmadinejad then said, I'm just amazed as the representative of the media, why do you insist on the untrue accusation leveled by your government? This doesn't solve anything. It seems to me it's laughable for someone to turn a blind eye to the truth and accuse others. It doesn't help. And the reason that I'm smiling again, it's because the picture's so clear. But American officials refuse to see it. And I think that as a member of the media, your responsibility here is to talk about the truth and back home to force your officials to appreciate the truth and to take the correct decision. . . . Many thousands of American soldiers have been killed. They need to answer for their action. Instead of answering those questions, they are accusing others."

Scott Pelley accused Ahmadinejad of "dodging the questions" and repeated, "Will you pledge tonight to do everything in your power to prevent Iranian arms from entering Iraq?," The Iranian President replied, "Well, I think you have been charged with a mission to repeat a sentence over and over again. My comments are very clear. I think you should go back and take American officials to task. Use the same force you are using right now so that they take the troops out."

The New York Times reports that "the Bush administration has been considering whether to classify the [Iranian] Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group." (Oct. 8, 2007) The Bush administration is a terrorist group.

The "American officials" who need to hear the truth include the leading Democratic presidential candidates. In a September 26 debate in Hanover, New Hampshire, they refused to pledge to end the occupation of Iraq and bring the US forces home by 2013, the end of their presidential term, if elected. When asked if they could make such a commitment, Illinois Senator Barack Obama replied, "I think it is hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there." Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards responded. "I cannot make that commitment." And Senator Hillary Clinton of New York answered, " . . . I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting." ("The Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC," Transcript, The New York Times, Sept. 26, 2007) Obama, Edwards and Clinton are willing to have "American blood" on their hands through their presidency.

Senator Clinton also appears to be willing to have "American blood" on her hands in Iran. She voted for the recent Senate resolution calling on the Bush administration to classify Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. ("Obama launches attack on Clinton over Iran," By Marcella Bombardieri, The Boston Globe, Oct. 12, 2007) And in a policy statement on "Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century," appearing in the Nov./Dec. 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, she wrote, "Iran . . . must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table" (italics added). In the face of her support for the Bush administration's falsely-based, criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq, she also wrote, "Iran . . . is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism." She even stated, "Our quarrel is not with {the Iranian people} but with their government." Echoes of President Bush's words before US state-sponsored terrorism was unleashed on Iraq.

The commitment of the leading presidential candidates is about dodging reality. Whoever is elected president in 2008 will have "inherited" a blatant, globally condemned, international war crime against humanity that needs to be ended now. Accompanied by American-led reparations and works of restitution beginning immediately. And the glaring perpetrators of this horrific crime brought to justice before they trigger a war against Iran to further cover up their imperialistic blood for oil policies against the people of Iraq and America. Instead of a planned presidential library for George W. Bush at accommodating Southern Methodist University, there should be a jail cell in his future-and that of his vice president and other war-mongering imperialistic advisors.

Everyone bleeds human. And the lifeblood of every human being is sacred.

Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D. is a hospital chaplain, and a diplomate in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy. Both a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics and religion. He can be reached at william.alberts@bmc.org.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Ready, Aim, Fire....

.....those flabby-assesd farts, always at the ready - if someone, anyone, other than a Gooper of course - says anything at all about the little clay gods of war, thus gassing up the place to the point where no one is capable of making any sense at all.

It is time to fear not the howls of hysteria from the land of Wingnuttia. We really don't have a damn thing to lose anymore.

Published on Thursday, October 11, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Democrats: Slack-Jawed Yokels at a Three Card Monty Festival

by John Atcheson

In rhetoric there are two common tactics debaters use when the facts aren’t on their side: they attempt to change the subject or alter the terms of the debate.

Magicians frequently use misdirection when they’re about to make something disappear.

Grifters have been making money off of rubes since biblical times with the, “Hey, look over there” ploy just before they hide a card, slip a coin from under a shell or otherwise fool the mark.

And strong-armed stooges have been intimidating the timid for time immemorial.

But none of them hold a candle to what the Bush administration and the right wing echo-chamber has been doing to both the press and the Democrats for going on seven years now.

The MSM and the Democrats have been fleeced more times than a slack-jawed yokel at a three card monty festival. And after every encounter, the Democrats tentatively peak out the bathroom door, hair dripping from yet another swirly, and whine, “Hey. The big kids took my lunch money, again.”

The problem with this is, when they get fooled or intimidated, the people get screwedand democracy gets shortchanged. It also allows Republicans to beat us even when they aren’t holding the winning hand.

Two recent examples - the press’s and the Dems response to the MoveOn ad on General Petraeus and the discussion surrounding Dan Rather’s suit against CBS - show how effectively the Republicans use these tactics, and how seriously it undermines the basic tenets of democracy our founding fathers built into the Bill of Rights.

Let’s examine them, starting with the MoveOn ad.

The MoveOn Ad- It’s the Issues, Stupid

MoveOn correctly raised the following questions: Was Petraeus a credible witness? Was he being honest with Congress and the American people? Was it appropriate for a military man to carry partisan political water? Would he, in fact, be betraying us if the answer to some or all of these questions were yes?

Serious stuff.

But have we as a nation had a full debate on these issues? Nope. Republicans raised a huge stink over name-calling, and the Democrats and the MSM veered off on an orgy of recrimination over a bad pun.

Let’s pause a moment and contemplate this astounding turn of events: the nation became obsessed with MoveOn’s bad pun-to the point where both Houses of Congress passed proclamations condemning it - but basically dropped the extraordinarily important issues raised by the ad.

The fact is, Petraeus did lie - or at least deceive - Congress and the American people about the “success” of the surge. The GAO Report, statistics from the UN, from humanitarian groups, and Iraq’s own count suggest there was no verifiable change in the number of sectarian killings since the surge began. More importantly, most of the objectives of the surge were political, not military, and none of them were met.

The sleight-of-hand Petraeus used to create the appearance of military progress was straight out of a grifter’s playbook - he appears to have changed the way we count sectarian deaths.

Those bodies piled in the corner over there? Oh, they don’t count. They’re …uh … let’s see … uh … victims of crime. Yes, that’s it. Crime victims.

Using legerdemain to deceive Congress? Trying to pass off an abysmal failure as a success? “Well, maybe that’s not appropriate,” mumble a few of the less timorous Dems. But then the Republicans scream, “Wait! Look over there! Those people are calling a General a bad name! A General with all kinda metals an’ stuff. This is serious! Quick! We need to nip this in the bud! Call out the instigators!”

And like a bunch of four year olds at a magic show, the Dems and the MSM turn from General Prestidigitator to watch Chuckles the Clown perform some inane foolery, and those hoary facts and abject failures disappear in a cloud of righteous indignation.

But here’s the deal. There’s ample evidence suggest that MoveOn’s questioning of the General’s impartiality and objectivity was more than warranted.

After all, Petreaus has a history of acting in a highly partisan and political manner. In September of 2004, he intervened in the presidential election by placing an op-ed in the Washington Post defending Bush’s “they’re standing up, so we can stand down” pitch.

This issue - whether we were succeeding in Iraq - was perhaps the most hotly contested and important argument in the campaign. It’s fair to say, Petraeus’ op-ed - strategically timed before the election and placed in Washington Post - helped Bush win in 2004.

The fact that Petraeus was wrong, that the Iraqi security forces were not “standing up” merely makes the substance of MoveOn’s ad all the more important. An independent assessment of Iraqi security forces headed by Retired Lt. General Jones found that the security forces - which Petraeus was in charge of training when he wrote his op-ed - are so riddled with sectarianism, incompetence and corruption, that the Commission recommended they be disbanded and that the US and Iraq start over again and rebuild them from the ground up.

Bottom line? The preponderance of evidence suggests that Petraeus was intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people on the military outcomes from the surge; that he is ambitious and that he has a record of partisan and political behavior that is as blatant as any General since MacArthur; and that he may have misrepresented progress in Iraq once before. In short, the issues raised by MoveOn’s add were legitimate, vital to our national interest, and on target.

As for the name-calling? Perhaps uncalled for. Whatever else he may be, Petraeus has served this country and worked diligently to defend it. But he has only himself to blame. You don’t jump smack into the middle of the political fray in a highly partisan manner twice, then get to run and hide behind your stars and metals.

Generals with integrity who feel they must become political retire before doing so. One of them, Lt. General Gregory Newbold, articulated the failings of this administration’s Iraq policy on behalf of all troops as eloquently as anyone, when he said, “My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results.”

That, for the record, is what supporting our troops looks like, when misdirection, change of subject and hysterical emotionalism are stripped away from the debate.

But most of our Democratic slack-jaws and the MSM are still staring at Chuckles the Clown and wondering how Petraeus and Bush pulled off the magic act of making the surge seem “successful.”

The few who saw the facts get swept off the table are simply too timid to point it out - “What if the other boys and girls don’t believe us?” they ask, with quaking voices and knocking knees. “Worse yet, what if they call us names like ’soft on terrorism’?”

Pathetic. Instead of confronting the faux patriots who used the simple threat of name calling to start a war under false pretenses; to gut the first and fourth amendments; and to commit unprecedented acts of greed, graft and corruption, the Dems, trying to be all things to all people, run and hide, and thus become nothing, to no one.

And now, Petraeus - Bush’s very own Preatorian - is joining in the obscene chorus calling for military intervention in Iran. Having exalted him to the status of a warrior-god, and having failed to confront his clay feet, the Dems will be hard-pressed to rebut him.

Cowardice has its costs.

Dan Rather, the MSM, and the Feckless Dems

The MSM’s reaction to Dan Rather’s $70 million dollar suit against CBS is extremely revealing. As with the MoveOn ad, the issues raised by the suit are vitally important. They have serious implications for the fitness of the President to serve and the state of journalism in America -just as they had when Rather was summarily dismissed by CBS after their sham in-house investigation run by Bush family cronies.

And just as with the MoveOn ad, these issues got subordinated to questions of little or no import, raised by an hysterical right wing echo-chamber. And just as with MoveOn, the Democrats served as enablers, because they stood idly by in stunned silence like deer in headlights while it happened.

Here’s the synopsis: Rather and Mapes used several sources to confirm that Bush had received special treatment in getting into the Texas Air National Guard and that he in all probability went AWOL, and failed a drug test or refused to take his physical to avoid one.

Mapes wrote a book detailing the research she and Rather relied on, and Sidney Blumenthal has published a thoroughly researched examination of the incident for Salon. It’s hard to read either without being convinced the charges were true, and the case strong.

Rather used, as one of his sources, a couple of memos signed by Bush’s squadron commander, Col. Killian, detailing Bush’s violations.

Marion Carr Knox, Col. Killian’s administrative assistant, said the contents of the memos were true, although she didn’t remember typing them. It’s possible Killian typed them himself, and Ms. Knox acknowledges she could have simply forgotten typing them.

A handwriting analyst confirmed that Killian’s signatures on the memos were authentic.

As for special treatment? Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes admitted intervening to help young George get into the Texas Air National Guard (called the “champagne unit” because so many children of privilege found their way into it as a way to avoid the Viet Nam war) at the request of George senior.

When young George went to Alabama, he claimed to have fulfilled his military obligation with a Guard unit there. Yet there is no record of him ever attending a Guard meeting. Moreover, George senior asked some old friends - Linda and Jimmy Allen - to keep their eye on young George, and Linda said that to her knowledge, he never went to a National Guard base or wore a uniform.

Ms. Allen told Salon, that while she saw no evidence that he was involved with the Guard in any way, she did remember him drinking to excess, urinating on a car, screaming at police and trashing the apartment he had rented.

Right wing attack squads seized on one of the sources - Killian’s documents detailing the charges - and claimed they were forgeries. Their only “proof” that they were phony-that the margin justification and superscripts used in the memos were not available back then -turned out to be completely wrong. Several electric typewriters of that era had both capabilities.

The preponderance of evidence suggests Rather got the story right, even if the documents aren’t used as evidence. Itshows that the contents of the documents were true, but it also suggests the documents were authentic. Indeed, Blumenthal’s case is so strong, you come away believing that even if the documents had been forged, Rather’s story stands as accurate based on corroborating information. It’s also hard not to believe that there’s been something close to a conspiracy of silence on the part of the MSM, and an abject caving to power and cover up by CBS.

Nevertheless, no one fought back, and the forgery charges stuck.

So once again, we have a story with profoundly serious accusations that was de-railed by righteous indignation from the right-wing echo chamber. Somehow, an accusation (quite possibly a false one) aimed at Rather and his CBS team, made the rest of the story simply evaporate. In fact, while the press promptly dropped the Guard story, the issue of Rather’s handling of the story rattled around in the press for weeks.

It’s as if the entire MSM headlined “DOG BITES MAN” for weeks on end, while they ignored a story about a guy who was running around the country biting dogs in broad daylight. You get the sense that if deep-throat called a reporter today offering a tip, the editors would have insisted that they hang up on him and write a story on bad sourcing.

Now, which is more important: whether the President of the United States is lying about matters directly relevant to his credibility and his fitness to serve as commander in chief, or whether one out of several proofs of this behavior might (or might not) be phony?

Remember, this is a man who called himself a “war president,” a man who sent young men and women off to war on a pack of lies and deceptions with no compunction, and a man who used fear and intimidation as key parts of his campaign strategy.

If it became widely known that Bush used privilege to avoid the Viet Nam War (a war he supported - provided, apparently, that other people fought in it) then failed to fulfill his duty - probably to avoid drug tests - it would have almost certainly altered the election.

But the press dropped it, and the Dems cowered before the right wing assault on what amounted to a mere sideshow to these major issues. Yokels indeed.

Fast forward to today. How does the MSM respond to Rather’s suit? As if it were the courageous act of a dedicated reporter trying to get to the bottom of a critically important story that had been wrongfully suppressed?

No, they portray it as the act of an egomaniac or attempt to diminish it with fake pity, paying absolutely no attention to the critically substantive issues it raises - issues that have hung out there un-addressed for more than three years now.

If this confirms that the Democrats are pathetic cowards, it also tells us a great deal about the press. They’ve simply stopped performing the task our Founders envisioned for them when they provided First Amendment protections - informing the people and holding the privileged and powerful accountable.

The Death of Truth and the Wages of Cowardice

Why has the press abrogated this responsibility? Because they’ve become one of the powerful elite. Because they’ve shifted from a profession operating according to an ethical canon, to a business driven only by a bottom line. Because they’ve aligned themselves with the Republican Party’s corporatization of America.

The press won’t rescue itself - but the Dems can confront this kind of demagoguery by standing on principle.

They can quit trying to be all things to all people, and stand up to the bathroom bully.

They can refuse to let Chuckles the Clown fool them and the American people by taking strong, clear stands on issues of substance, and insist that those issues be addressed, instead of mumbling dried out mush, spoon fed by inside- the-beltway consultants designed to say nothing and offend no one.

It’s not like that strategy has worked for them. They’ve lost two consecutive presidential elections they should have won by replacing their values with cowardly “consultant speak.”

Only the Republican’s dishonesty and gross incompetence allowed them to win the 2006 mid-terms.

And now, the only thing less popular than Bush is a Congress dominated by spinmeisters, consultants and cowards who are once again advocating this losing strategy of saying nothing, offending no one, and holding no public principles other than the most smarmy inanities and cynically calculated positions defined by polls.

And so we have a Congress swooning in front of metals, uniforms, and stars like a highschool girl at a Justin Timberlake concert, afraid to withhold funding to end Bush’s Iraq folly, afraid to put impeachment “on the table,” afraid to assert their Constitutional responsibilities on Iran, afraid , afraid, afraid.

And we have an MSM allowing a distinguished journalist to get mugged by right wing whackos over mere trivialities, and worse, joining in on the mugging the second time around when they had a shot at redemption.

Meanwhile, issues of vital import to our nation get swept under the rug.

And it goes well beyond Rather and MoveOn.

Basically, Pelosi Reid and crew are doing what Dems have always done: folding like an accordion at a polka festival.

No wonder the Republican charge of being weak on defense sticks. When we quake in corners afraid of name-calling and drop our principles quicker than a geek gives up his lunch money we reinforce that stereotype.

No wonder the MSM can get away with substituting “balance” for truth, “fairness” for accuracy, as they pursue corporate-will-to power and profit over public interest. When the Dems cower and pander, there’s no one to stop them.

Pundits are saying it would be nearly impossible for the Democrats to lose the 2008 elections - but don’t underestimate their ability to fold a winning hand. Mumbled mush and political cowardice have enabled them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before, and judging by their performance over the past few weeks, they’re well on their way again.

John Atcheson’s writing has appeared in the Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The San Jose Mercury News, and several other major papers, as well as in various policy journals. He is currently completing a novel centered on global warming.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.