Even with countless media outlets available these days, a Sunday New York Times cover story could always be counted on to send a jolt through the television news cycle.
But apparently that’s no longer the case. Indeed, reporter David Barstow’s 7,600-word investigation of the Pentagon’s military analyst program — whereby ex-military talking heads, often with direct ties to contractors, parroted Defense Department talking points on the air — has been noticeably absent from television airwaves since the story broke on April 20.
While bloggers have kept the story simmering, Democratic congressional leaders also are speaking out, calling for investigations that could provoke the networks to finally cover the Times story — and, in effect, themselves.
It was our best argument against McCain. It was an ad that was making the Republicans reel. You saw it here. It's the DNC's biggest gun yet against McCain - the 100 years ad in which John McCain says he's fine with us staying in Iraq for another century. The Republicans have been demanding that TV stations not air the ad. They're absolutely freaking out over it.
And now Hillary just killed it for us.
You see, three years ago, while having one of her "I love John McCain" schmooze fests, Hillary let out the whopper that she agrees with John McCain on Iraq, adding that it's fine with her if we stay there for another 50 years. Sure, she didn't say 100 years, she only said 50. but the point is made. Were Hillary to become our nominee, we'd no longer be able to use Iraq as an issue against John McCain because Hillary agrees with John McCain, and worse, she used his same language - the language we're using in our top ad against John McCain. (And actually, even when Obama is finally anointed, we're still going to have to face charges that McCain's position on Iraq is no different than Hillary's.) Here's what Hillary had to say:
"Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties," said Clinton. "We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II."
So once again, Hillary's attempt to pretend she's a Republican has shot us in the ass. Then again, no one could have predicted that Hillary's refusal to admit defeat, her insistence on throwing every Democratic issue and constituency under the campaign bus, would turn around and hurt our chances in November. Oh wait a minute. Yes we did. Still think we should let this go until June? Seriously, does anyone in this party want to win any more?
PS We also can't hit McCain on his ridiculous gas-tax-holiday idea since Hillary is for it too. Nice.
This NYT article on Iraq today is a good example of why it's so frustrating to try to follow news on Iraq through corporate media. Michael Gordon, who does some really good stuff on Iraq and often seems to fully understand the intricacies of the conflict, delivers up what reads like the stenography for which reporters are so often criticized by experts in various fields. In this case, the Bush administration is once again accusing Iran of causing problems in Iraq, this time by reportedly bringing in Hezbollah (an Arab, Lebanon-based Shia group formed to fight Israel and now a significant political and military force in Lebanon) officials to train Iraqi militia members. This is part of a continuing story in which the US blames problems in Iraq on nefarious neighbors, but anything is possible, so it's worth looking at the details of the report.
Or at least it would be if there *were any details* in the report. Most critically, it's important to note that there are many militias in Iraq. There's a (US-supported) Sunni militia in western Iraq (Anbar province), and in addition to several smaller tribal and political party-affiliated militias, the two major Shia political groups, ISCI and Sadrists, both have armed elements (the Badr Corps and the Mahdi Militia, respectively). So one would think an important detail of the story would be . . . which militia we're accusing Iran of training? Especially because the US has essentially come out in support of ISCI and its Badr Corps, as they are the main element keeping Prime Minister Maliki in power. Could the administration flacks be so cynical as to accuse Iran of training a "militia" that we tacitly support, and that is closely allied with our good buddy Maliki?
I suppose it's possible that the militia in question is the Mahdi Militia, but with Iran supposedly backing away from support of Sadrists, that seems less likely, and since the US opposes Mahdi so strongly, why not just say so if that's the case? The whole thing is very strange, and it's opaque to an extent that it's very suspicious.
Just when you thought you heard it all, you see this. The Green Zone as the hot new attraction with posh hotels, luxury shopping and an amusement park for the entire family. I'm sure the pro-war crowd is just lining up to get in on the action. Forget about jobs and feeding families, get in now and make cash from chaos. Hooray for the shining beacon of freedom and democracy! Oh look, is that the al-Sadr roller coaster over there?
Forget the rocket attacks, concrete blast walls and lack of a sewer system. Now try to imagine luxury hotels, a shopping center and even condos in the heart of Baghdad.
That's all part of a five-year development "dream list" — or what some dub an improbable fantasy — to transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone from a walled fortress into a centerpiece for Baghdad's future.
Five years ago this week, President Bush exulted beneath a banner that declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. McCain, under any interpretation of his words, is proposing another mission in Iraq--a long vigil--that would extend for decades. With the stakes so high, it's not enough for him to accuse critics of twisting his meaning: He needs to more clearly explain it himself....
[I]f McCain doesn't envision a 100-year American front-line combat presence in Iraq, how long is he willing to keep U.S. forces in that role? So far, all he has said is that the United States should withdraw only if it concludes that the Iraq mission is unachievable or when it has achieved success, which he defines as the establishment of "a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state."
McCain hasn't said how long he would keep fighting to reach that demanding goal. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of McCain's closest Senate allies, recently said he thinks that McCain would maintain current U.S. troop levels in Iraq through his entire four-year presidential term if military commanders recommended that course to maintain stability there.
Over at the Washington Independent, reporter Spencer Ackerman has been writing, among other things, a series on counterinsurgency. Today he takes a particularly interesting approach to the subject, writing about how the rise of Shia Islamist leader Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq has been largely due to Sadrists adopting the type of approach lauded by counterinsurgency doctrine. The thing about counterinsurgency is that it's really just a military way of saying that *somebody* has to provide government-type services -- security, education, health, economic, etc -- and in times of conflict, whichever group can do that tends to gain legitimacy and support. In Iraq, several parties have tried to do this with varying success, and Sadr has been among the most effective. As Ackerman explains,
The principles of counterinsurgency are diverse, but they could be summed up as methods of warfare used to draw a civilian population's political and personal allegiance away from a guerrilla force. A counterinsurgent force seeks to coordinate military and civilian methods to offer both material and ideological incentives to a population so it will support a government and reject that government's enemies.
Currently, the U.S. military and its civilian associates have launched a "population protection" strategy to defend Baghdad residents against sectarian and criminal gangs; to promote competent and responsible governance at the provincial as well as national levels; to jump start commerce; and to provide social services like education health care and sanitation. But in the areas under his control, Sadr provides all these things -- and does so better than the Iraqi government.
And rather than recognize these facts as they are, the US seems to vacillate between condescending to Sadrists in an attempt to placate them and openly trying to eradicate the group. We underestimate the power of popular movements to our own peril, and while I find many of Sadr's beliefs and goals extraordinarily distasteful, he's not leaving the picture anytime soon.
# In 2005, McCain decided Iraqis resent our military presence, so we should reject a Korea-like model for long-term troop deployment. He insisted that "U.S. 'visibility' was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America's presence — positions held by both Obama and Clinton."
# In 2006, McCain reversed course, and embraced the Korea model for a long-term military presence.
# In 2007, McCain reversed course again, saying the Korean analogy doesn't work and shouldn't be followed. "[E]ventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws," McCain told Charlie Rose last fall.
# And in 2008, McCain reversed course yet again, deciding that we should be prepared to leave troops in Iraq, even if it means 100 years or more.
A double suicide bombing struck a wedding convoy northeast of Baghdad Thursday, killing at least 35 people and wounding 65 others, police said.
In Baghdad, a car bomb aimed at a U.S. patrol in Baghdad on Thursday killed an American soldier and least nine Iraqi civilians and wounded 26, police and military said.
The first attack on the wedding convoy in the town of Balad Ruz was carried out by a female suicide bomber, said Army Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim al-Rubaie, an official with the Diyala provincial operations center that oversees the town.
About 10 minutes later, a man detonated his explosives as rescue workers were trying to help the victims of the first attack, Al-Rubaie said.
"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year."
She said what is important now is "how the president would describe the fight today. It's been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy."
At least 49 U.S. troops died in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month since September when 65 U.S. troops died.
Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer.
Sure, Bush paid the price. But 49 more soldiers are dead in this endless war.
These people are unbelievable. They still don't get it. They actually think Bush is the victim here. Watch the pundits all agree. Poor Bush. It wasn't his fault the sign was wrong or the war has been a disaster.
It's sick. And, don't forget, last year, Laura Bush told us that when it comes to Iraq, "no one suffers more than their President and I do."
You may have heard about the TV ad that has the Republicans flipping out. It's an ad that shows John McCain saying he's fine with us staying in Iraq another 100 years. (In fact, McCain said it was okay if we stayed in Iraq for 10,000 years). Anyway, the Republican National Committee is demanding, simply demanding, that TV stations not air the ad because they say it's not true. Of course, it is true, it just hurts. Kind of sucks that the Republicans' own in-house propaganda network has said the ad is okay. This makes it impossible for other networks to say the ad isn't fair to the Republicans, now that it has FOX's seal of approval. Here's the ad. Enjoy it again for the first time.
Just in case anyone in the punditry is interested (and can break away from the trifling issues over which they're obsessing), there is a war raging in Iraq. And, it is raging:
Bombardments by suspected militants killed four U.S. soldiers Monday as troops tried to push Shiite fighters farther from the U.S.-protected Green Zone and out of range of their rockets and mortars.
At least 44 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month for U.S. forces since September.
We shouldn't have had five years of this disaster in Iraq. But, we really can't take 100 years of this.
No, not the Wall Street collapse and bailout or the skyrocketing price of oil since the Iraq invasion. Not talking about the increasing inflation that is crushing normal Americans. Nope, not talking about the sub-prime bubble bursting nor the failures of post-Katrina reconstruction. And no, this isn't about the budget surplus disappearing into a massive deficit either. Oh and no, this isn't about the corporate welfare called "no price negotiations with Big Pharma despite preaching about the free market" with the Medicare money. This is just another example of failed oversight in the black hole of spending called Iraq.
Millions of dollars of lucrative Iraq reconstruction contracts were never finished because of excessive delays, poor performance or other factors, including failed projects that are being falsely described by the U.S. government as complete, federal investigators say.
The audit released Sunday by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, provides the latest snapshot of an uneven reconstruction effort that has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion. It also comes as several lawmakers have said they want the Iraqis to pick up more of the cost of reconstruction.
There are, of course, human costs to Americans from the war in Iraq, and we don't hear enough about them. We hear even less, though, about the human costs to Iraqis in Iraq. The brilliant and talented Ann Friedman helps to fill that vast void with a piece highlighting the importance of hearing about what it's like on the ground -- that is, not just from a political perspective, but from a personal one. As she says:
The news outlets that still report from Iraq rarely publish accounts of daily life there. Rarer still are narratives from outside the confines of the Green Zone. Sure, we get snippets of information from Iraqi reporters working with Western journalists, but most of the time, Iraqis' voices come to us in the form of react-quotes after a marketplace bombing or sectarian uprising. We don't see what it's like for Iraqis to walk home from the scene of the violence, then make dinner, then put their kids to bed. We lack the humanizing power of detail.
Democracy is founded on the will of the people, and for that will to be true and just, it must be informed. People have the right and the responsibility to know the facts about the actions of our nation and its leadership, and the realities of Iraq are a critical -- and too often overlooked -- element of who and what we are and want to be as a nation. Not to mention, y'know, a huge part of the day to day story.
Greg Mitchell, of the invaluable Editor and Publisher, writes about an under-reported aspect of the war in Iraq. A recent report indicates that around 20% of suicides nationwide are current or former military personnel. Other than being at least some indication of the toll inflicted on someone who is trained to be able to kill others, it's an indictment of how our government takes care of the men and women who serve in the armed forces.
As Mitchell explains, non-combat deaths in Iraq are often vaguely reported, and when they're possible suicides, it's often local news outlets that take the lead in investigating. And the problem is significant and apparently worsening:
A rise in suicides among soldiers serving in the military has alarmed Pentagon planners and members of Congress as the war in Iraq enters its sixth year. An Army report produced last year found the rate of suicides among soldiers deployed in Iraq from 2003 to 2006 was almost 40 percent higher than the military's average suicide rate. An update of the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team report released in March found suicide rates for soldiers in 2007 remained "above normal Army rates."
I spend a lot of time talking about the political implications of foreign policy in general and Iraq in particular; it's also vital, though, to keep a level eye on the human costs. And they are seemingly endless.
Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, an anti-American cleric who has massive support from Iraqi Shia, are part of a popular nationalist movement, committed to a united Iraq, relative independence from Iran, an end to US occupation, and conservative religious government. Needless to say, I personally think many Sadrist goals and actions are noxious. I also recognize, however, that there are a limited number of players in Iraq with real support; Sadr is one of them, and he continues to prove that he has at least some control over his putative followers ... many of whom are armed to the teeth.
So when our Secretary of State engages in schoolyard bullying, taunting the leader of millions of (armed) Iraqis, many of whom are actively engaged in the political process, it's a slap in the face not just to a massive popular movement in a country we're occupying, but in the face of the troops who are on the ground simultaneously trying to work with and/or fight against Sadrists. It's yet another "Bring 'em on" moment from an administration that seems to have made an art of underestimating and misunderstanding the enemy.
Again, I have no affection for Sadr, and I know better than most the result of the work of him and his followers. Let's take a look, though, at the person Secretary Rice calls a coward: Throughout Saddam's reign, Sadr's family was one of very few religious families not to leave the country. For their troubles, the family was rewarded with murder after murder after murder. Sadr's father was killed by Saddam. So were two of his brothers. So was his father in law. This is not a guy who has avoided the effects of violence.
If we're serious about democracy, we have to be serious about dealing with people who are popular, even if we don't like them. General Petraeus made engagement with Sadrists a high priority, and it's not clear why we've now gone 180 degrees. But needless provocation has no military or political benefit, and it should be beneath the highest-ranked diplomat in the nation.
DKos reports that the National Defense Institute has just come out with a paper on the Iraq war, calling it "a major debacle," "an incubator for terrorism," and then blasting Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley, among others. This would be the war that John McCain says is going really well.
This is seriously bad news for McCain as he runs for a third Bush term. When the Democrats lock down their Presidential candidate, McCain is in for some rough seas. A few highlights of note:
The percentages of Democrats and independents advocating withdrawal and seeing Iraq as distinct from the U.S. terrorism fight are also at or near high marks. And three-quarters of Democrats and nearly six in 10 independents do not see significant progress in Iraq.
And...
Two-thirds of Democrats call the economy downright "poor," as do a majority of independents. But while a wide majority of Republicans rate the economy negatively, only about three in 10 describe conditions as that dire, and most have a positive take on the future. Most Democrats and independents, however, hold pessimistic views about the next 12 months.
Economic ratings are flagging across partisan lines, and overall optimism is at a new low among all Americans: Nearly six in 10 said they feel pessimistic about the economy for the coming year, a seven-point increase since early February. And those who think the situation is already in poor shape do not have high hopes for recovery anytime soon; nearly three-quarters of them have a negative view about the next 12 months.
The Republicans can write off Democrats - they can't write off independents.
This ought to be a real boost to the pro-war crowd in Congress and McCain who keep telling us we need to stay for 100 years. If the Iraqi troops don't want to stand up, why should US troops or voters support the ongoing war? Let the GOP and their Big Oil friends fund this fiasco or ask Iraq to use their oil wealth but enough is enough.
A company of government troops abandoned its positions in Sadr City when the forces came under attack from Shiite militiamen who took advantage of a sandstorm to attack, police said Friday.
The clashes overnight killed two people and injured nine, a police commander said. The officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release the information, said it was unclear whether there were any casualties among the soldiers.
The reports of the latest setback for the Iraqi army come after government officials acknowledged that during fighting last month against Shiite militias in the southern city of Basra, more than 1,300 Iraqi soldiers and police deserted or refused to fight.
