The farcical end of the American dream
The US press is supposed to be challenging the lies of this war
By Robert Fisk
03/18/06 "The Independent" -- -- It is a bright winter morning and I am
sipping my first coffee of the day in Los Angeles. My eye moves like a radar
beam over the front page of the Los Angeles Times for the word that
dominates the minds of all Middle East correspondents: Iraq. In
post-invasion, post-Judith Miller mode, the American press is supposed to be
challenging the lies of this war. So the story beneath the headline "In a
Battle of Wits, Iraq's Insurgency Mastermind Stays a Step Ahead of US"
deserves to be read. Or does it?
Datelined Washington - an odd city in which to learn about Iraq, you might
think - its opening paragraph reads: "Despite the recent arrest of one of
his would-be suicide bombers in Jordan and some top aides in Iraq,
insurgency mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi has eluded capture, US authorities
say, because his network has a much better intelligence-gathering operation
than they do."
Now quite apart from the fact that many Iraqis - along, I have to admit,
with myself - have grave doubts about whether Zarqawi exists, and that
al-Qai'da's Zarqawi, if he does exist, does not merit the title of
"insurgency mastermind", the words that caught my eye were "US authorities
say". And as I read through the report, I note how the Los Angeles Times
sources this extraordinary tale. I thought American reporters no longer
trusted the US administration, not after the mythical weapons of mass
destruction and the equally mythical connections between Saddam and the
international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001. Of course, I was
wrong.
Here are the sources - on pages one and 10 for the yarn spun by reporters
Josh Meyer and Mark Mazzetti: "US officials said", "said one US Justice
Department counter-terrorism official", "Officials ... said", "those
officials said", "the officials confirmed", "American officials complained",
"the US officials stressed", "US authorities believe", "said one senior US
intelligence official", "US officials said", "Jordanian officials ...
said" - here, at least is some light relief - "several US officials said",
"the US officials said", "American officials said", "officials say", "say US
officials", "US officials said", "one US counter-terrorism official said".
I do truly treasure this story. It proves my point that the Los Angeles
Times - along with the big east coast dailies - should all be called US
OFFICIALS SAY. But it's not just this fawning on political power that makes
me despair. Let's move to a more recent example of what I can only call
institutionalised racism in American reporting of Iraq. I have to thank
reader Andrew Gorman for this gem, a January Associated Press report about
the killing of an Iraqi prisoner under interrogation by US Chief Warrant
Officer Lewis Welshofer Jnr.
Mr Welshofer, it transpired in court, had stuffed the Iraqi General Abed
Hamed Mowhoush head-first into a sleeping bag and sat on his chest, an
action which - not surprisingly - caused the general to expire. The military
jury ordered - reader, hold your breath - a reprimand for Mr Welshofer, the
forfeiting of $6,000 of his salary and confinement to barracks for 60 days.
But what caught my eye was the sympathetic detail. Welshofer's wife's
Barbara, the AP told us, "testified that she was worried about providing for
their three children if her husband was sentenced to prison. 'I love him
more for fighting this,' she said, tears welling up in her eyes. 'He's
always said that you need to do the right thing, and sometimes the right
thing is the hardest thing to do'".
Yes, I guess torture is tough on the torturer. But try this from the same
report: "Earlier in the day ... Mr Welshofer fought back tears. 'I deeply
apologise if my actions tarnish the soldiers serving in Iraq,' he said."
Note how the American killer's remorse is directed not towards his helpless
and dead victim but to the honour of his fellow soldiers, even though an
earlier hearing had revealed that some of his colleagues watched Welshofer
stuffing the general into the sleeping bag and did nothing to stop him. An
earlier AP report stated that "officials" - here we go again - "believed
Mowhoush had information that would 'break the back of the insurgency'."
Wow. The general knew all about 40,000 Iraqi insurgents. So what a good idea
to stuff him upside down inside a sleeping bag and sit on his chest.
But the real scandal about these reports is we're not told anything about
the general's family. Didn't he have a wife? I imagine the tears were
"welling up in her eyes" when she was told her husband had been done to
death. Didn't the general have children? Or parents? Or any loved ones who
"fought back tears" when told of this vile deed? Not in the AP report he
didn't. General Mowhoush comes across as an object, a dehumanised creature
who wouldn't let the Americans "break the back" of the insurgency after
being stuffed headfirst into a sleeping bag.
Now let's praise the AP. On an equally bright summer's morning in Australia
a few days ago I open the Sydney Morning Herald. It tells me, on page six,
that the news agency, using the Freedom of Information Act, has forced US
authorities to turn over 5,000 pages of transcripts of hearings at the
Guantanamo Bay prison camp. One of them records the trial of since-released
British prisoner Feroz Abbasi, in which Mr Abbasi vainly pleads with his
judge, a US air force colonel, to reveal the evidence against him, something
he says he has a right to hear under international law.
And here is what the American colonel replied: "Mr Abbasi, your conduct is
unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about
international law. I do not want to hear the words international law. We are
not concerned about international law."
Alas, these words - which symbolise the very end of the American dream - are
buried down the story. The colonel, clearly a disgrace to the uniform he
wears, does not appear in the bland headline ("US papers tell Guantanamo
inmates' stories") of the Sydney paper, more interested in telling us that
the released documents identify by name the "farmers, shopkeepers or
goatherds" held in Guantanamo.
I am now in Wellington, New Zealand, watching on CNN Saddam Hussein's attack
on the Baghdad court trying him. And suddenly, the ghastly Saddam disappears
from my screen. The hearing will now proceed in secret, turning this
drumhead court into even more of a farce. It is a disgrace. And what does
CNN respectfully tell us? That the judge has "suspended media coverage"!
If only, I say to myself, CNN - along with the American press - would do the
same.
***
Pledging to Vote for Peace
By The Nation
03/18/06 "The Nation -- -- How many Americans would pledge to cast their
votes in November only for candidates who want to end the war in Iraq?
According to a poll conducted for the new group Vote for Peace, 46 percent
of likely voters agree with the pledge the group will be promoting in
advance of the November, 2006, congressional elections: "I will not vote for
or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a
speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression,
a public position in his or her campaign."
One in every five voters surveyed expressed strong agreement, while 26
percent said they were at least somewhat in agreement with the statement.
Among Democrats, agreement with the pledge rises to 67 percent (33 percent
strongly). Fifty-nine percent (25 percent strongly) of Independents agree,
while and 26 percent (5.5 percent strongly) of Republicans are on board.
"This poll demonstrates that anti-war voters are significant enough in size
to effect the outcome of elections -- if they become organized. Just like
pro-gun groups have organized, pro-choice and pro-life groups have
organized -- now the anti-war constituency has been identified and the peace
movement is ready to organize them. This will ensure that the anti-war
movement will no longer be one that can be ignored," argues Kevin Zeese, an
organizer of the nonpartisan Voters for Peace initiative that launched
Friday.
Starting with grants of $1 million for the 2006 election season, Voters for
Peace run a national campaign that will encourage voters to pledge to cast
their ballots for anti-war candidates as part of a broader effort to educate
the electorate about how to make the war an issue this fall. The pledge,
which was inspired by a Nation magazine editorial that committed the
publication to endorse only candidates who seek a rapid end to the war, can
be found at the new group's website: www.VotersForPeace.US.
Already endorsed by many of the country's largest and most active anti-war
organizations, including United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, Not In
Our Name, Democracy Rising, Code Pink, AfterDowningStreet and Peace
Majority, the Voters for Peace initiative will reach across partisan and
ideological lines.
Zeese says the initiative will seek to organize two million voters in 2006
and five million by 2008. And makes a convincing case that such organization
could have a profound impact on both elections by putting more focused
pressure on both major political parties.
"Organized anti-war voters who pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates may
force the Democrats in particular to develop a stronger position against the
war. The Democrats may now realize that if they fail to represent the
anti-war community voters will stay home or vote for alternative party and
independent candidates," explains Zeese, the president of the national group
Common Sense for Drug Policy who is seeking Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat
as an "independent unity" candidate in November.
"Republicans are not free to ignore the anti-war constituency either," adds
Zeese. "Not only do more that 25 percent of Republican voters oppose
candidates who support the war, but the fastest growing group of voters --
independents -- overwhelmingly support the pledge. So, that all important
swing voter can cause Republicans to lose elections - and could become a new
source of support for Democrats -- or if both parties fail to support voters
wishes then candidates running independent of the two parties may find a new
foundation on which to build an independent political movement."
---
Organizing Voters to End War
Protests and Petitions are Not Enough
"I will not vote for or support any candidate for President or Congress who
does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war
of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign.?
Click here to make a difference."
http://www.votersforpeace.us/content.jsp?content_KEY=1470
Copyright © 2006 The Nation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
