Betty here, filling in for the vacationing Rebecca. I want to note C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" and then just talk about Iraq a bit:
Chaos and violence continue.
But will you hear about it? (How bad is the coverage -- in terms of quanity? So bad that Mark Silva's Chicago Tribune article is titled "Remember Iraq?") And, if you do, will you hear of the 'relative calm' or any other dubious phrase?
Following Sunday's bombings that claimed the lives of at least 66 and left over 200 wounded, today's events may not 'impress' enough to get the coverage they deserve.
It's after 10:00 pm in Baghdad, here are some of the events reported from Iraq.
Bombings?
Reuters reports two roadside bombs in Baghdad (one killing an Iraqi solider and wounding three more ; the other killing a civilian and wounding three police officers); a car bomb in Mosul killed five Iraqi soliders and wounded four; a roadside bomb killed one person in Mosul; and mortar bombs in Baghdad wounded at least eight people. CBS and the AP report a car bomb in Samarra that killed two Iraqi police officers and wounded 17. That would be six bombings with ten killed (plus the driver of the car bomb in Mosul for eleven -- Evening Echo News notes that the "car driver accelarted toward the house before detonating the explosives" -- the police were using the house as a command station). Of the car bomb in Mosul that killed the Iraqi soldiers (not the police officers), RTE News notes: "The Iraqi vehicle was driving behind a US patrol at the time of the explosion, although no US personnel were reported injured in the blast."
Shootings?
Reuters reports "an agricultural engineer" was shot dead near Kerbala; gunfire near Hilla left two dead and 17 wounded; and four died from shootings in Mosul. AFP reports the shooting death of "a bodyguard of a Sunni politician" in Baghdad. That would be eight dead.
Corpses?
AFP reports 23 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi prime minister (in name if not deed) Nouri al-Maliki splits from Iraq and goes to London. James Hider and Jenny Percival (Times of London) note the departure this way: "As he flew out of his embattled capital yesterday at least 63 people were killed in bomb attacks and a dozen were shot dead in relentless drive-by shootings or kidnapped and murdered." Or, as Paul Schemm (AFP) worded it: "Nevertheless, while Maliki began a trip to Britain and the United States, the violence raged on at home."
The BBC reports that on their radio program Today, Nouri al-Maliki has declared that Iraq "his country would not slide into a civil war." Reuters quotes him saying, "Civil war will not happen." CBS and the AP report him declaring, "There is a sectarian issue, but the political leaders have succeeded and they are working on putting an end to the sectarian issue. There is continuing efforts in that direction, the civil war will not happen to Iraq." The Puppet meets the Bully Boy in DC on Tuesday while he preps new 'believeable' lines -- possibly that no one takes a cut off the house's take in Vegas?
This as Patrick Cockburn (London's Independent via Belfast Telegram) reports on a conversation with Hoshyar Zebari (Iraqi Foreign Minister) who spoke of how "in theory the government should be able to solve the crisis because Shia, Kurd and Sunni were elected members of it. But he painted a picture of a deeply divided administration in which senior Sunni members praised anti-government insurgents as 'the heroic resistance'."
Meanwhile Mark Silva (Chicago Tribune) quotes an unidentified White House flack saying: "In terms of the civil war question, I would simply say there has been a rise in sectarian violence.. . That in itself does not constitute a civil war,’’ the official said." In terms of the news value of that quote, I would simply say there is none. That in itself, a flack lips flapping, does not constitute news.
AP reports that Muqtada al-Sadr's followers have released a statement on the impending meet up between Bully and Puppet: "We want him to cut his visit and not to sign any paper leading to occupation forces remaining in Iraq." And Robert H. Reid (AP) quotes one al-Sadr 'follower,' Jalil al-Nouri, stating: "We are the only group that rejects the occupation because we are nationalists. We are the only political group that rejects their presence in the country and we demand that they leave. We are to the point, and we are clear."
But with al-Maliki due in DC tomorrow, don't be surprised to see the days events described as 'calm' or 'relative calm' (on a day with at least 19 reported dead and 23 corpses discovered) and the rah-rah-'liberation' noises to start up all over again. Don't expect to read many pieces like Michael Gregory's "None left untouched by daily violence in Baghdad" (Reuters) which notes: "President George W. Bush will hear the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, in Washington on Tuesday tell him of plans for stemming bloodshed in Baghdad and repeat assurances he gave on Monday that Iraq is not at war with itself. But talk to people at random in the capital and a picture quickly emerges of a city where virtually everyone has a friend, relative or neighbour who has fallen victim to the sectarian shootings and death threats that Washington accepts are now an even bigger threat than the 3-year-old Sunni insurgency."
In Australia, the inquiry into the April 21st death of Jake Kovco in Iraq continues. Last week, it was decided (or "decided" since the board of inquiry appears to change its mind regularly -- Olive writes that Judy Kovco should call it the "Keystone Court" as she called the police the "Keystone cops" last week) that the former roommates of Kovco, in the room when he died, would testify from Iraq via videolink. James Madden (Daily Telegraph) reports that has changed and now the board has decided to summon the two roommates to testify in person. Madden also notes that Dectective Sergeant Phillip Elliott testified to the inquiry that "Pte Kovco's body was washed and his two roommates were allowed to shower after the shooting. The bed linen and the soldiers' clothes were washed, and blood spatter was thought to have been removed from the ceiling and furniture." Australia's ABC notes that Kovco's "clothes were destroyed" prior to Elliott's arrival for the investigation. Malcom Brown (Sydney Morning Herald) reports: "In answer to Lieutenant-Colonel Frank Holles, for Private Kovco's parents, Sergeant Elliott said Private Kovco's roommates, Soldiers 17 and 19, differed as to where Soldier 17 was sitting at the time of the shot. Soldier 17 had said he was sitting at the foot of the bed and Soldier 19 said Soldier 17 was sitting at the middle. [. . . .] Sergeant Elliott agreed the two also differed in their accounts of where Private Kovco lay after he fell. Bloodstains on the floor were consistent with him having been turned over after he fell." Austraila's ABC notes, of the decision to have the former roommates testify, "The inquiry has agreed to the application, but it is not yet known when the soldiers will return to Australia."
Meanwhile, the Herald Sun reports that a witness known only as "Soldier Two" will testify with regards to how Bosnian Juso Sinanovic's body ended up being shipped to Australia instead of the body of Jake Kovoco.
In peace news, it's day 21 of The Troops Home Fast (21 days since it started, 21 days for those who have been fasting since the Fourth of July -- but you can join the fast at any time). Robert C. Koehler (Tribune Media Services) writes of his decision to fast for one day and join the efforts organized by CODEPINK, Global Exchange and Gold Star Families for Peace: "We have a war machine that's fed by hate and fear - indeed, by the need for enemies without the least humanity, because that absolves us of the need to have any ourselves. It's the age-old formula for war, but we have entered a time when it is globally life-threatening. When the world's only superpower swaggers through the Middle East with that kind of delusional anger and a military budget of half a trillion dollars that requires annual justification, watch out. It is time for new priorities."
And Christopher J. Stephens writes, in The National Ledger, of the cases of Ehren Watada and Suzanne Swift noting: "Veterans for Common Sense [VFC] wrote an open letter to President Bush in March 2005 that noted some ominous possible results of the war in Iraq: 1.26 million Iraqi children under the age of five will die, 500,000 will need immediate medical attention, and 2 million will become homeless. Signatories to this letter included two Navy Vice Admirals, a Brigadier General, 14 Colonels, and 4 Captains."
First off, the continued news about Jake Kovco begs the question of why is the US media so indifferent on this story? They had plenty of time to chase down Michael Jackson's trial. Why are they so disinterested in this story?
But what stands out is the comment C.I.'s making about "calm." Earlier today, in "Other Items," C.I wrote the following:
I also have to question the "relative calm" which has been popping up in many press outlets. They can't, by any means, call it peace. But should they be calling it "relative calm"? Should the baseline be whether or not over fifty people die in bombings one day or are kidnapped and killed at bus stops? Is that really how reporters should be judging the situations in Iraq?
"Oh, only seven or twelve people died today -- that we know about from official sources -- so it's only seven or twelve. Let's call it 'relative calm.'"
There's something about that usage that really bothers me. Cave's not the only one to use it. It goes beyond him (and beyond the Times). Already today, there have been two bombings in Baghdad and two in Mosul. Will the fatality rate not be "enough" to qualify as less than 'relative calm'? It's something to think about.
Is it 'calm' that there are 'only' ten or twenty reported deaths (covered?) in a day? Three years after the US illegally invaded Iraq with the stated detent of destroying the WMD (that never existed) and bringing 'democracy' and 'liberation' to the people of Iraq, is it fitting or appropriate to describe the continued chaos as 'calm'?
Are we so immunized by the coverage that a lower number now equates with peace?
The choas and the violence continue day after day. These days it has to compete with what's going on in Lebanaon and Gaza. Those are worthy stories to cover. But what about Iraq? And since the US is responsible for the conditions in Iraq, can the coverage, even for one day, ever take a vacation? I don't think so and I don't think we can describe X number of deaths as 'calm.' I think that's a lie.
I think people using it aren't trying to lie. I think they're trying to put the day into perspective of the most violent day. But I don't think that cuts it.
Every day of violence needs to be put into perspective of the administration's claims and stated intent. Is it 'calm' when 'only' twenty die? No. Not three years after we went over there to supposedly 'liberate.' I think it's a lie to use words like 'calm' with what's going on, day after day, every day in Iraq.
The perspective used to declare 'calm' is too small. It needs to be enlarged. Not to cover last week or the week before but to cover the war because that's what those reporters are: war correspondents. I think when 'calm' is used, it presents a false sense of reality.
I think it prolongs the war and lulls some people into the belief that we're accomplishing something.
The perspective should be placed in terms of the day's events and in terms of the stated goals at the start of the illegal war. That's the perspective that's needed.
Not the latest line from DC or Nouri al-Maliki. The illegal occupation continues. Starting the clock at yesterday or last week doesn't give you a sense of the 'score.' (I played baksetball and ran track. I know sports illustrations bother some.) It's not telling you what's happened in the 'game.' It's not even telling you about the play. Because to appreciate that I made a basket, to really appreciate it, you need to know what else has been going on in the game. (Unless you're my grandfather who never cared whether my team won or not, just how many baskets I made. One game, I made four and we lost. He couldn't stop bragging about my four. It was like -- "What game were you at, Grandpa? We lost!")
If the notion is that by comparing it to the recent past they're showing progress or the lack of it, that's simply not true. After three years of the illegal occupation, you can't look at even just one week and claim that's perspective. Is the violence continuing? Yes. Then don't call it calm. Relative or otherwise, don't call it calm.
That's not perspective.
Perspective is noting how much the US has spent on the illegal war, how many have died, the stated aims of the war and the reality on the ground that day. Don't tell me there's 'calm' or 'relative calm' when the violence continues day after day, though it may dip or rise. That's the perspective.
I know C.I. was tired (tired from the edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review, tired from problems with posting at The Common Ills, tired from personal stuff, and tired from fasting) Sunday night. But I think "And the war drags on . . ." was one of the best things yet. That's perspective.
I worry that, with all the attacks in Lebanon and Gaza, we catch a headline or hear one line of a report of Iraq and if it's "relative calm" or "calm," we end up thinking, "Okay, things are going better there, I can focus on other areas." Things are not going better there. Things are worse each day. If you're only focus is the body count, then, yes, there are "better" days from time to time. But what's going on, what the Iraqis are living under is not "better" now and it is not "calmer" now.
While I think there are stories that deserve attention, I think some on the left's obsession with Mexico's election (and it was an obsession -- it wasn't reality -- and it continues for some) needs to be remembered. Iraq didn't drop in coverage from the left due to Israel's actions. Before they got serious about that (and most weren't serious until Lebanon became part of the story), they were off on "STOLEN ELECTION!" They wasted our time for a number of reasons.
One, there still hasn't been the massive uprising that was predicted (not reported, and predicited from the moment some on the left hopped on board this story that they just knew was the most important one in the world). Two, that "proof" that Oba-bore kept telling the press he had? When he finally was forced to provide it, it really didn't amount to much.
Was the election stolen? I don't know anyone that thinks it was a fair election. I don't know anyone who's obsessing over it either. There are wars going on and people dying. For every Greg Palast that did actual work on the issue of the elections (Palast does real work) there were 100 being offered who wanted to whine. They didn't know anything other than what they felt. They didn't offer much beyond trying to turn the Zapatistas into the new Ralph Nader ("spoiler"). Now if one guy who wrote at least two articles about it and went on two programs to whine had used that time instead to actually research and investigate, maybe he would have had something to offer? He had nothing to offer. Palast is the only one who's had anything of value of those saying the election was stolen and insisting that we make this our primary focus.
Again, that didn't happen while things were quiet in Iraq. Or while nothing was happening with the peace movement. Ehren Watada (which NYT finally wrote about Sunday in "Officer Faces Court-Martial for Refusing to Deply to Iraq") had many developments in his case (including charges being brought). One program elected to ignore the protests. (Hasn't done much to cover the Troops Home Fast actions either.) But they had plenty of time to tell you about Mexico. So much time that, when they had Watada's attorney, they had to say something like, "We have ten seconds."
They had ten seconds because they wasted an hour program not focusing at all on Iraq until the end of the broadcast. That's not anyone else's fault, that's their own.
I have no idea why the program felt I needed repeated coverage of an election between a rightists and a left-leaner. I have no idea why 'coverage' was nothing but (with the exception of Palast) opinion. I have no idea why lip service from a candidate (Oba-bore) was promoted as truth. But it was. We were told, on that program, that Oba-bore had big proof. BIG proof. Then, after he showed his very weak proof (are six votes supposed to have swung the election?), they bury it. They toss into headlines and say something like, "Oba-bore provided what he stated was proof today . . . including video of . . ." Including? He had two bits of "proof."
Maybe all those people who thought this was the most pressing issue of the day (and many covered it as if it were) should have been helping Oba-bore get some proof because what he offered was embarrassing and laughable.
Again, I don't doubt that the election was fixed. I do have serious doubts about those who attempted to turn this story into BIG NEWS when it wasn't.
My point here is that independent media needs to grow the hell up. They're big (especially some) on pointing to the corporate media and speaking of how they chase down the "hot" story. Coporate media does do that. They offer up O.J. and a variety of 'junk news.' But indepedent media questions it's own usefulness when it's chasing after an election story, non-domestic, when there are other elections that also took place that are thought to be crooked (I believe Moldavia was the one C.I. pointed out in the round-robin) so don't pretend like you're worried about a crooked election. You aren't. And don't pretend like it's because you had proof because July is ending and there's still no proof despite independent media glomming on this story the first week of July.
What was done with Mexico wasn't reporting. To report, you need facts. They had little to no facts. (They still have little to no facts with the exception of Palast.) Was one of the people involved a supporter of the people like Hugo Chavez? No. Which was the Zapatistas started their Other Campaign months before the election.
I think it's a real shame that when the US is actively involved in wars, the independent media wants to glom on Mexico (at the expense of Iraq because Iraq took a nosedive due to the Mexico coverage) by providing 'journalists' who don't offer anything but rants. By treating rants like their facts. By refusing to cover the voters' reactions (as C.I. pointed out, we're talking about Mexico, it's not the Green Zone, you can find voters in Mexico to speak with -- and should if you're supposedly concerned with the election that will, in the end, effect them far more directly than it will some titty-baby journalist who's screeching like his lover has been denied office as opposed to conducting himself like a reporter).
The thing is, this will happen again. With all the nonsense/coverage of Mexico's election, we saw the weakest, limpoest, most ineffective side of independent media. It was a shock to me. It was shocking to watch or read that nonsense and realize that there was an effort to force me to care about an election that I didn't see a lot of anguish and turmoil over from the actual voters, while real news was pushed aside.
Mike noted that during this nonsense, war was treated as an after thought. He titled a column for Polly's Brew that. In another he listed all of our independent media that had been contacted about Nancy A. Youssef's should-have-been-ground-breaking report that the US was keeping a body count on Iraqis despite their repeated denials, that they had been for over a year, that they wouldn't release that count to reporters (or citizens). That was a devastating moment for independent media, if you ask me. It showed that real news didn't matter, despite all the claims and shout outs. It demonstrated that actual news that matters, the government being found in another lie, didn't matter as much as stirring up anger and outrage over an election that no US citizen voted in, that Mexico hasn't fallen apart over.
They wated our time and they discredited themselves. (People who read Mike's column know which ones I mean.) There were a lot of people I respected that I lost all respect for over this.
I do care about the world around me. I do care about what's happening in Sudan. (I don't believe the answer is to send in US forces and give the Bully Boy another illegal occupation.) I do care what's happening in India and elsewhere. In Mexico, I'm very concerned with the continued disappearance of women. I'm not interested in an election that a right winger may have stolen from a centrist with coverage that's a lot of hot air and not any proof.
That people thought this was news when the so-called 'crackdown' in Baghdad was obviously not producing 'results' of safety bothers me to this day. There are some voices I trusted that I will never be interested in again.
For some outlets on the left, Mexico became THE story, for over a week. And we never got proof (to this day) and we never got to hear from voters. I thought that was what independent media was about, the people? Suddenly it turned into all the things that were wrong with Meet the Press and countless other programs. It became a group of pundits speculating without any ties to facts. We're thinking, for The Third Estate Sunday Review, about what will be the biggest stories of 2006? I stated Saturday that for me it will be the revelation that independent media can be as bad as the mainstream. Not due to budget. Not due to getting something wrong. But due to a desire to attempt to force a response from you -- an attempt to tell you what to do and what to think without any proof or evidence. That's my biggest media disappointment of the year.
Where was the news value in that 'story,' in that 'report'? It wasn't in the facts because, other than Palast, no one seems to have any. It wasn't in the opinions of the people effected because they weren't given an platform to speak. It seemed to be about a bunch of little writers with small minds taking to the airwaves and print to scream and whine that Oba-bore lost and should have won. That's a story that we need to drop coverage of Iraq for? That's a story that's fit to compete with everything else going on in the world and triumph over everything else?
I hope I'm wrong. I hope that this was a one-time thing. But I don't think so. I think there will be massive protests in this country that will be ignored (or put into a tiny clip, as one program did, with a right-wing led protest on Sudan and call that 'coverage'). I think Iraq will continually slip out of the coverage (despite the fact that there's no excuse for any US outlet not to cover it). I think that we'll see slaughter and death all over the world take a backseat to someone's pet cause and, instead of it being presented as opinion, it will be presented as truth with the intention of outraging us and getting us to focus on this non-issue.
The corporate media drops the ball all the time. They chase after some 'sexy' non-story all the time. Indepedent media can't point a finger if they're doing the exact same thing. Iraq matters, it's past time that independent media treated it like it did. (And, my opinion, the most recnet protests nationally, got no attention. I'm speaking of the ones against the war. The ones that went on on a Friday and, if mentioned at all, had to share coverage on a Monday with the dopey "Bring the troops home and send them to Darfur" crap.)
I think, finally, that before people next trumpet their own bravery, they ought to re-examine their own recent actions. There are a lot of independent media news outlets that lost me this month.
