Stop the planet, I wanna get off.

http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Ghosts-Soldiers-America-Washington/dp/0451218418

I also just finished Paul Rieckhoff's Chasing Ghosts which is fantastic. I thought it might be dated since he served in Iraq from 2003 to early 2004, but it still holds up. Very good first person account of what it's like serving in Iraq. Rieckhoff came home and founded the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association.

He signed up for active duty, but he thought Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. He came home and found that Janet Jackson's boob on the Super Bowl was bigger news than Iraq. He tried to reach out to Bush campaign to let them know what really was going on in Iraq from the grunt's eye view. They did not get back to him. He had a more serious flirtation with the Kerry campaign, but realized they didn't want to talk about Iraq, they wanted to talk about Vietnam. Somebody had made the political decision that Iraq wasn't an winning issue for them.

He talks about being in Iraq and learning about the "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring It On" speeches. It was in Iraq before Soldiers had Internet service and after and talks about what that was like. He says as soon as we dissolved the Iraqi army, violence increased. He also mentions what be the next big mistake we made over there after too few troops, disbanding the army, and throwing the Baby out with the Top Baathists. In June 2003, Gen McKiernan was ordered to move his headquarters back to Florida, with him went hundreds of intelligence officers just as the insurgency was starting to gell. Rieckhoff said he noticed that week, the quality of intelligence dropped. His platoon was part of mission to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr, but it was called off at the last minute.

Regarding spending and the proposed new 2.9 trillion budget, I read in the paper today that the 248 billion surplus (per year) from Social Security was to be used for other things. Now I know why it is going bankrupt.

JJK

I also just finished Paul Rieckhoff's Chasing Ghosts which is fantastic. I thought it might be dated since he served in Iraq from 2003 to early 2004, but it still holds up. Very good first person account of what it's like serving in Iraq. Rieckhoff came home and founded the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association.
===========
Rieckoff has been a very outspoken critic of the media. He is rarely interviewed. Keith Olbermann has had Rieckhoff on his Countdown show. Rieckoff is an active participant in media reform groups and has spoken at several conferences including the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis January 23, 2007. A few of Rieckhoff's highlights from the conference:

"The past few weeks the biggest story has been Rosie and Donald Trump. And this is what dominates people's consciousness. More people talk about that around the water cooler than what's happening in Fallujah or Ramadi."

His biggest criticism with the media's coverage of our "wars of disconnect" is how little we are allowed to glimpse the true cost of war and how veterans' voices have been nearly frozen out. (That reality led him and other fellow returning vets in all 50 states to form IAVA in the first place.) He says things have improved on that front, but important Iraqi voices continue to be shut out of the coverage leaving Americans with less than a full picture of what's going on over there.

But Rieckhoff also defended the media against government attacks:


There was a lot of dialogue coming out of the White House attacking the media early-on saying, "You're only telling the bad news stories." And they were really attacking the messenger.
I've always said, if you want good news stories, go to Disneyland. [laughter] Don't go to Iraq...[applause]...because it's a war zone and there are bad things happening there. When the media explains and depicts, albeit flawed, what's happening over there, they shouldn't be attacked for that.

Yet, as we would learn later in the program, media of all forms is still being bullied and pushed around by the powers that be. More recently, those being intimidated are independent reporters and citizen journalists whose Constitutional First Amendement press protections are still being sorted out, and who have fewer resources and clout to protect and defend themselves with.

John

Regarding spending and the proposed new 2.9 trillion budget, I read in the paper today that the 248 billion surplus (per year) from Social Security was to be used for other things. Now I know why it is going bankrupt.
========
Not new news:

Again, something you only learn watching live sessions of the Congress on C-Span:

The Republicans have spent the Social Security surplus every year since the Bush administration took control and they took control of the Congress. The objections on the floor have all come from Democrats who could do nothing about it due to closed rules on amendments by the Republicans. What you heard or read is not something new. It was just kept from you for a few years by the news media.

John

if I want to watch REAL news I tune into CBC (Canadian broadcast corp) or BBC (British broadcast corp).
=================
For the longest time the only place to watch the BBC was on Public Television because they were blocked. But PBS was only allowed to air the BBC for one hour and NOT consecutively. It was only allowed in half-hour blocks only one which can be aired during prime time. Recently they were allowed two non-consecutive hours but for some reason they don't show that many hours and again only a half hour allowed during prime time.
Cable television blocked the BBC until they were granted expanded and now you can get the BBC, but ONLY if you subscribe to "premium" cable packages. Apparently the BBC is not "on-message" with the filtered information of the US networks. BBC journalists get their training from academic institutions and mentoring from prominent journalists. American journalists have mostly gotten their training from Pavlov.

John

". BBC journalists get their training from academic institutions and mentoring from prominent journalists. American journalists have mostly gotten their training from Pavlov."

That's only a small part of the issue. The real deal is RATINGS. American news programs worry a GREAT DEAL about the ratings and audience numbers. In the US it's not only how well you report, but also how pretty and entertaining you are. Ratings are worried about so much in the US that it actually starts getting in the way of the news. This does not happen so much in Canada... heck you should see some of our reporters... over weight, bald... doesn't matter... as long as you are good at the news. One of our most respected political reporters weighs about 300lbs. It is interesting however that all our "pretty" journalists end up in the US (John Roberts for example started here in Canada on CTV news).

I always remember the Simpson trials… that was absolutely amazing! The media frenzy was so incredible and the one-upmanship was to the point where they actually had interviewers interviewing the interviewers! Here in Canada anyway, the insane media craze became part of the story.

I’m sorry… I make it all sound pretty bad, and it is not. The US also has some of the most noted and famous journalists as well. Personally speaking, I had the utmost of respect for the late Peter Jennings, and there are a few others as well. The US has the ability to produce and promote some amazing newcasts/newmagazines…. So long as they can keep the ball trained on the news instead of the ratings.

Peter Jennings was a Canadian to the best of my knowledge and was imported to the US.
JJK

Yup... took him a while to get US Citizenship too!

The real deal is RATINGS. American news programs worry a GREAT DEAL about the ratings and audience numbers.
========
That is true but beside the point.

I don't know how many detailed examples like the one I spent an hour researching above you need to understand what is going on here, but it goes on every day of the week. How can downright misrepresentation of the truth be for "ratings"? How can sneakiness be for "ratings"? How can lying with a straight face be for "ratings"?

Think about it.

John

Edit: It is too bad John Roberts didn't stay in Canada. He is one of the biggest pundits and purveyors of misinformation on CNN these days. And that's quite a distinction.

Peter Jennings was great. Got himself in trouble lots of times with ABC for not playing ball. Got my respect for that.
Too bad he died so young.

He is one of the biggest pundits and purveyors of misinformation .......

I think he has some competition

This just in from Business Week:

Top Pentagon officials [Wolfowitz and Feith], authorized by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "inappropriately" misled the White House in asserting strong prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which turned out not to be true, and intentionally withheld data provided by outside intelligence agencies that challenged the Pentagon's conclusions, Acting Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers Feb. 9.

So the buck passing continues... "I didn'a do it, mommy, honestly! Johnny did it all by himself!"

So far the moussed heads on TV have been talking (only?) about who's "winning" the "war" [a war that has never been declared, so it should only be ranked with the equally, um, successful "war on drugs," etc.]

What about all the useful things that can't be done here in the U.S because a trillion or two are diverted from hardworking taxpayers' pockets to pay for the folly, not to mention that nobody in the legislative or executive branch seems to be able to think enough about anything else to get anything important done here?

Top Pentagon officials [Wolfowitz and Feith], authorized by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "inappropriately" misled the White House in asserting strong prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which turned out not to be true, and intentionally withheld data provided by outside intelligence agencies that challenged the Pentagon's conclusions, Acting Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers Feb. 9.

So the buck passing continues... "I didn'a do it, mommy, honestly! Johnny did it all by himself!"

So far the moussed heads on TV have been talking (only?) about who's "winning" the "war" [a war that has never been declared, so it should only be ranked with the equally, um, successful "war on drugs," etc.]

What about all the useful things that can't be done here in the U.S because a trillion or two are diverted from hardworking taxpayers' pockets to pay for the folly, not to mention that nobody in the legislative or executive branch seems to be able to think enough about anything else to get anything important done here?
========
If you watch the House in session on C-Span it is clear they are getting a lot done, but much of it will be shot down in the Senate and if it gets by them the president will veto it. During the 2008 campaign the news media will help the Republicans who shot it down blame the Democrats for not getting anything done. In fact the news media started doing that right after November 6 before the Democrats even took power.
With each new piece of legislation passed in the House by the Democratic majority the news media airs the very same Republican objections I hear them spew on the House floor something they never did when the Republicans had the majority there.

The Republicans left 9 appropriations bills off the slate in 2006 and even after they lost in November they wouldn't bring them to the floor for votes despite the Democrats "begging them" not to end the 109th Congress EARLY. The Republicans chose to leave the Republican appropriations bills for the Democrats to vote on because they figured it would keep them so bogged down they couldn't get anything NEW done. That is why the Democrats came up with the "100 Hours" of legislation under a closed rule and plan to lump all the REPUBLICAN appropriations bills the REPUBLICANS refused to vote on into one bill with NO EARMARKS attached.
NONE of those Republican tactics during the 109th Congress were revealed by the news media. NONE of them. Instead it is a relentless bashing of Democrats and regurgitation of the same Republican talking points I hear on the floor of the Congress.

As far as the hearings go, I listened to them live (on C-Span) then later watched the Republican arguments aired in the mainstream news media. The arguments sounded pretty desperate when you heard them live, but of course all of us in the video editing business know the power of editing.

In the end the news media will still help the Republicans and the Bush administration cast doubt on whether the Bush administration intentionally lied to lead us to war (an offense that isn't grounds for impeachment. It is grounds for TREASON). The I Lewis Libby trial which could make a case for it even though the charge against Libby is only perjury has been covered under an arrangement with the White House by the news media. Unlike even the OJ Simpson trial no live cameras are allowed. Audio tape only of "selected" testimony.
All that so that the public can depend upon the "news media" for their filtered account of what is being said at the trial. According to some "independent reporters" the only one in the courtroom not afraid of the White House is the Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. Some of the testimony looks really bad for people like David Gregory and Tim Russert of NBC and of course Judith Miller of The New York Times amongst others in the media because it is coming out that they intentionally withheld information from the public and distorted the rest at the request of the Bush administration and their parent corporations. For that reason alone the news media won't cover it live.

So where is all this going if I am correct in that the news media will try to balance the truth about what the Bush administration did to take us to war in Iraq with the lies from he and his party?

Simple, the IRAQ investigations will HOPEFULLY serve to turn at least a majority of the public against an attack on IRAN by questioning the "evidence" the Bush administration is currently gathering and the news media is starting to lend credibility to once again.

The news media ACTIVELY sold the war against Iraq to the public for the Bush administration. Some of the same players are involved in it now. Michael Gordon of The New York Times who co-wrote the false justification articles along with Judith Miller for the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the "Nuclear Ambitions of Sadaam Hussein" and the "Iminent Threat" posed by Iraq just wrote a promotional speech for attacking Iran in the New York Times the other day. Do people have short memories?

Don't let them do the same when it comes to Iran despite how "cinvincing" the argument sounds when the talkin heads in the media sit at a table in a seemingly intelligent way nodding at LIES and bringing on so-called "experts" whom they don't disclose have ties to the people looking to expand the war to Iran.

It is disgraceful that we in the United States don't have a single widespread news media source looking out for the public interest like the BBC. They do a better job covering OUR news than we do.

John

Maybe some at the BBC remember when their empire was in the same situation?

Extensive overseas holdings that didn't bring in any profits or raw materials anymore, holdings that were just status objects and cost a fortune to defend.

The same thing that happened to so many empires before in human history.

Empires do make many positive contributions that are easy to forget, but towards the end they become albatrosses around the necks of their own tax payers.

I'm sure we will pull out of this mess too though, because there is so much positive "can-do" energy and sheer ingenuity in this country.

The question is if there is any way to speed up the detox of everyone who inhaled the "magic mushroom cloud" that seems to have hit much of the population. Or was it pods offloaded from the back of a truck? :O)


From the Guardian (UK) just now:

Walter Pincus testified that White House press secretary Ari Fleischer leaked him Plame's identity in July 2003.

Nice sandbox...

Thought you might find this memo that went out to Republican members of the House of Representatives that explains the rhetoric they are spewing all week on the House floor over the Democrat's resolution that will force all members to vote either for or against the Bush administration's new troop buildup in Iraq Friday following the FIRST discussion about the Iraq War ALLOWED by the Congress since the war started. The resolution simply states:

1. Yes we support the troops on the ground.

2. No we don't support the troop increase proposed by the Bush administration.

Short and sweet. A sentiment the vast majority of the American people the Congress is SUPPOSED TO represent share.

GOP Memo Highlights:

"Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

All that to make sure that more Americans die in Iraq to protect Republicans.

Disgraceful.

John

Let us all know if any of the news media outlets find the memo "newsworthy". LOL

John, you selectively left out the main points about choosing where to fight the radical Islamists and why the debate needs to focus on this issue.

Anyone here remember Vietnam? How everyone said the country would collapse if we just "cut and run?" Well we did just that, and Vietnam recovered on its own very nicely once we were no longer there to inflame violence and destruction.

Vietnam is now a major trading partner with the U.S.

There's a really dangerous paternalistic attitude in assuming that the Iraqis are somehow not sophisticated enough to solve their own problems. These are, after all, the same people who invented modern civilization in the Fertile Crescent thousands of years ago.

Speaking as a Wisconsinite, I'm awfully proud of our junior senator,
Russ Feingold .

Best vote I ever cast. Too bad he's the only one who gets it!

John, you selectively left out the main points about choosing where to fight the radical Islamists and why the debate needs to focus on this issue.
==========
The debate was largely supposed to be about the resolution itself. The Republican memo was about how to avoid discussing the substance of the resolution. As I said, the resolution said only two things both of which reflect the sentiments of the American people.

1. Yes we support the troops on the ground
2. No we don't support Bush's troop level increase.

I did link the short Republican memo for everyone to read. The point was obvious. They were being instructed NOT to discuss the substance of the resolution because on that point they "lose".

Instead they were being told to change the subject. Listen to the arguments from the Republicans on the floor on C-Span:

"Your hurting the troops with this resolution and demoralizing them".

"Your aiding and emboldening the enemy with this resolution".

It's so childish they would be rejected from an elementary school debate team.

Then you have Lieberman and McCain who come back from Iraq and claim that the military people and troops they spoke to told them that this talk on Washington hurts their moral and that they thought this so-called "troop surge" would work.

Oliver North (of all people) was there and spoke to the SAME MILITARY PEOPLE McCain and Lieberman did and they told North that they did NOT tell those two those things. They said that they found it insulting that they were being treated like they were sensitive little children by politicians when they are putting their lives on the line for their country, and the officers told McCain and Lie-berman that a POLITICAL settlement was necessary NOT a troop surge.

Too bad most of the news media chooses to pander to the likes of McCain and Lieberman and their lies by lying to the public whose interest they are supposed to serve.

Collectively they do not care who dies as a result of their lies. The only reason Iraq is so out of control now is because while it was slowly descending into chaos there was no public pressure here at home because the news media was too busy covering up what was going on in Iraq for the Bush administration and the Republicans especially in 2004 when Bush came up for re-election. It was "necessary" for the media to play down the violence in Iraq and claim that AlQaeda was behind it instead of a civil war brewing amongst the Iraqis themselves so they could keep the Bush administration in power and help keep a Republican majority in the Congress who were saying those lies that the media swore to.

John

Anyone here remember Vietnam? How everyone said the country would collapse if we just "cut and run?" Well we did just that, and Vietnam recovered on its own very nicely once we were no longer there to inflame violence and destruction.
==============
The big difference is that the News Media went along with the Congress when they finally decided to cut off funding to end that war once and for all in addition to the fact that the news media didn't help Washington sell the war's merits to the public.

Todays news media will NEVER do that. They will place the blame for the whole thing on those who vote to cut off funding and play right into the Republican's childish distortions that somehow Democrats want to see soldiers die. The logic is fifth grade, but unfortunately there are a lot who buy into fifth grade logic in this country as long as it is coming from their most "trusted" news media source.

THEY sold the lies to the public that got us into this mess FOR the liars in the Bush administration. That is why there was so much public support for the invasion in the beginning (myself NOT included).

John

It was "necessary" for the media to play down the violence in Iraq and claim that AlQaeda was behind it instead of a civil war brewing amongst the Iraqis themselves so they could keep the Bush administration in power and help keep a Republican majority in the Congress who were saying those lies that the media swore to.

So how on earth did the "liberal media" come to do that?

Brown-nosing to get better access?

So how on earth did the "liberal media" come to do that?
========

What "liberal media"? The myth that never dies.

Sept 2003:
"CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."
As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.

On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

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

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

Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

CNN had no comment."

Friday July 9, 2004: Hardball with Chris Matthews to Democratic Senator Breaux (LA):

MATTHEWS: What happens, Senator Breaux, if it looks like that Al Qaeda is playing cards here, playing a game of trying to get people to vote Democrat for president, to basically make their case worldwide? Doesn't it put your party in a terrible position of having Al Qaeda rooting for you?

April 18, 2004 CNN's White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux:

"Rice voiced concern that terrorists might try to bring about a particular result in the U.S. election in November -- suggesting that their desired result is a Kerry victory."

Matthews on MSNBC and many on CNN and ABC repeated the following falsehood over and over during the 2004 campaign:

"Everybody saw what happened in Spain a little while ago. They basically blew up the train systems over there and basically made the case, you got to get rid of your pro-war government, and the people did just that in the elections. Are they going to try the same thing here?"


CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena reported -- under the guise of a statement of fact -- on the May 27, 2004 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, "There is some speculation that Al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House."


Then there was CNN's John King during the entire campaign in 2004. He was all over the country reporting and always ended his reports with the same line......."and people have to decide, do they really want to switch presidents in a time of war?"

Oct 1, 2004 CNN's White House Correspondent Jamie McIntyre's so-called "Fact Check"

McINTYRE: "There's a big dispute, Paula, about whether the Pentagon is overstating the number of Iraqis that are truly combat-ready.

But the general who's in charge of the training, very respected general, General David H. Petraeus, insists that 100,000 is the right number out of 164,000 in Iraq.

And the bottom line, the Pentagon says, is that Iraqi forces are actually fighting and dying in greater numbers in some cases than the U.S. forces. Just yesterday, 2,000 Iraqi troops took part in a major operation to retake Samarra from insurgents. And the Pentagon says the equipment is getting better all the time."


John

The idea that the media is "liberal" is a joke that ceased being funny a long time ago.