Saturday, March 18, 2006

Camilo Mejia on Saturday's RadioNation with Laura Flanders

CAMILO MEJIA ON
 
 
this evening/tonight. (Depending upon the time zone you're in.)
 
 
RadioNation with Laura Flanders
Third Anniversary of the Iraq War
Three years after invading Iraq, DC Dems are running from censuring W. Even as Bush defends pre-emptive war and says Iran is next.
Saturdays & Sundays, 7-10pm ET on Air America Radio
Who says the left has no alternatives to war?

We talk to Alexander Cockburn who has no fear... and to the former director of the Peace Corps, and UNICEF President -- Carol Bellamy. Plus anti-war veterans call in from New Orleans; wounded Iraqi children describe their lives today.
And Nation author Christian Parenti on why Europeans are doing a better job than the US in Afghanistan.
A one-hour version of last weekend's live broadcast from Montana is available at http://lauraflanders-com.c.topica.com/maaeBgxabo5GAbQccDue/

It's all on RadioNation with Laura Flanders this weekend on Air America Radio.
 
 
 
but the show is on right now and Flanders stated Camilo Mejia is a guest tonight.
 
Mejia is a community favorite (as the e-mails on Friday's entry can attest). So you've got your heads up.  The Saturday and Sunday shows are no longer archived at Air America Place.  An hour version of the two broadcasts are available online.  So if you miss Flanders tonight, you may miss your chance to hear Camilo Mejia. 
 
This is your update.
 
Thank you to Dallas and Kat for all their help in getting entries today.  (And thank you to ___ who's typing this dicated entry.)  Technorati won't read the first entry of the day and Kat republished it and republished it.  I told Kat  I'd try to think of something but I'm out of ideas.  Here's the opening of  "NYT: Can't own up to mistakes, be it the paper or Michael Gordon:"
 
Before we deal with news of the morning (or what made it into print this morning), we're flashing back to March 25, 2003.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, we have now learned from the U.S. Central Command that, in fact, Iraqi television and is also a key telecommution -- communications facility, as well as Baghdad's, Baghdad's satellite communications, have all been targeted, both by Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and by ordnance dropped from the air as well.
So a number of precision-guided munitions were used to take out a group of buildings that comprise something that makes up Iraqi television and also satellite communications as well. The stated purpose of this, according to the U.S. Central Command, is simply to take away command (UNINTELLIGIBLE) control capabilities from the regime.
And again, a senior administration official here in Washington tells CNN that it was always the plan not to take out the television from day one, that it served a purpose for a while. But under the war plan, there's a sequence of events that happens in a specific order to try to create the effect of undermining the regime. And in that sequence, today was the day that Iraqi television was scheduled to be taken out, Aaron.
BROWN: Jamie, thank you very much.

The above is from CNN's rush transcript for the March 25, 2003 broadcast of CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN. We're going back to it (the above was to set up that day's event) and, yes, there is a point. Here's the New York Times' Michael Gordon on the same program.

So I think the headline really is, shift of focus in the ground attack to the south. The air is continuing to focus on the Republican Guard in the north. And, you know, it's an adaptation, and I think really a necessary one.
And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target.

Gordon wasn't asked, by Brown or anyone else, according to the transcript -- read it yourself, about the bombing of Iraqi television, he brings it up himself and, above, is his full statement.
At the top of the program, the day's events are explained and they include that "a number of precision-guided munitions were used to take out a group of buildings that comprise something that makes up Iraqi television." The embed Gordon (he identifies himself that way on air), brings up the topic without prompting and states:

And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target.

Now we're going to yesterday's Democracy Now! ("New York Times Chief Military Correspondent Michael Gordon Defends Pre-War Reporting on WMDs"). Here is what Juan Gonzalez asked him:

JUAN GONZALEZ: There was, of course, the bombing of Iraqi television that occurred in the early days of the war. And you were actually on CNN where you were quoted as saying, "Personally, I think that the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda, that I think it was an appropriate target." And your, in retrospect, on that, that was condemned by many journalism organizations around the world, the attacking of Iraqi television. Your thoughts on it?

Now let's go through Judith Miller's former writing partner, who has now turned war pornographer, response, in full, to a direct question from Gonzalez:


MICHAEL GORDON: Well, I think when--you know, I don't know what was in General Franks' mind when he meant "media targets." I think General Franks has an odd way of talking, if you're familiar, if you've listened to him a lot or are familiar with him, and he's not always -- I don't want to cast any aspersions on him, but he's not always precise in his language. I think by "media targets" in that context, really what he meant was command-control communications.
But here was the issue: in the first war, they knocked Iraqi TV off the air. I'm not calling, and I shouldn't be interpreted as calling on the United States to bomb, you know, TV technicians--some of my best friends are TV technicians; I don't care if they're American or Iraqi. I don't want people to bomb TV stations per se, but I think that one of the problems they were had was keeping Iraqi television off the air, either through electronic jamming or by, you know, if you could hit an antenna, or, you know, hit a some sort of, you know, cable, or, you know, if there was some way of doing it.


He was asked to explain his statement saying that a civilian target, a TV station, was an appropriate target. Did Gonzalez mention Tommy Franks? No, he did not. Why Gordon brings up Franks is anyone's guess. No, Gordon didn't 'call' for a bombing of Iraqi TV, he merely justified it, after the fact, on his own, with no prompting from Aaron Brown. He brought the bombing up, on CNN in real time, on his own and justified it. Now, pressed on it yesterday, he can't admit what he did it. He can't own what he did. Why? Because it's that damn disgusting.

It goes against journalism, it goes against the rules of engagement for warfare. But he was there, in real time, to cheerlead a military attack on a civilian target. Now? He wants to act as though he was asked about Tommy Franks. By by Aaron Brown, Juan Gonzalez or his own craven ego desperate to save himself, I don't know. But he appears to think someone mentioned Tommy Franks.

(Or maybe the good embed just always pictures Franks in his head -- fully dressed or not, I wouldn't know.)
 
- - - - - -
 
That's the opening.  To read more about Gordon's embarrassing attempts at denial when questioned by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, read  "NYT: Can't own up to mistakes, be it the paper or Michael Gordon." 
 
Listen to Laura Flanders. 
 
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
 
 


Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

RadioNation with Laura Flanders: Alexander Cockburn, Christian Parenti and Carol Bellamy

Kat here. I'm getting ready to head out the door. Are you attending a protest? If not, what are you doing?

Sitting on your butt all day?

Well that will stop the war! You'll probably find the cure for cancer as well.

Seriously, get active. If you don't have an event in your area or you're not able to go out, call some friends and get them to come over. "House Party!" should replace "road trip!" as the rallying cry of this decade. It's certainly more energy efficient. It's the third anniversary. If you're not comfortable speaking out against the war now, when do you think you might be? Do you need to get back to me on that? All Puff, No Politics, eh? Don't tell me you're still suffering from "War Got Your Tongue?" That'll kill you, if it doesn't kill everyone else first.

Use your voice this weekend. And later today, this evening in some areas, what are you going to do? It's the weekend, hint, hint. What airs on Saturdays and Sundays?



RadioNation with Laura Flanders
Third Anniversary of the Iraq War
Three years after invading Iraq, DC Dems are running from censuring W. Even as Bush defends pre-emptive war and says Iran is next.
Saturdays & Sundays, 7-10pm ET on Air America Radio
Who says the left has no alternatives to war?

We talk to Alexander Cockburn who has no fear... and to the former director of the Peace Corps, and UNICEF President -- Carol Bellamy. Plus anti-war veterans call in from New Orleans; wounded Iraqi children describe their lives today.
And Nation author Christian Parenti on why Europeans are doing a better job than the US in Afghanistan.
A one-hour version of last weekend's live broadcast from Montana is available at http://lauraflanders-com.c.topica.com/maaeBgxabo5GAbQccDue/

It's all on RadioNation with Laura Flanders this weekend on Air America Radio.

Alexander Cockburn is, I believe, Laura's uncle. He is also a writer well known for his work over the years. These days he writes a column for The Nation and, with Jeffery St. Claire, he runs CounterPunch. Christian Parenti? You all know Rebecca has a crush on him, right? Listen and you may see why. The un-embed returns to talk to Laura. Last time, he mentioned the imprisoned (by choice) Green Zone reporter Dexter Filkins. What will be discussed this time?
You never know with Laura, you just know you won't want to miss it.


In fact, Cockburn and St. Claire have an article that just went up, that's very appropriate for today, entitled "Where's the Resistance Here on the Home Front?" so read that. I can't pull a quote from it because I'll screw it up. You have to read it in order. I'll give you the last thing from it, a footnote, because I'm glad to see people are noting that Amy Goodman stood war pornographer Michael Gordon down yesterday on Democracy Now! (as did Juan Gonzalez):

Footnote: It looks as if the fire escape chosen by Bush to save him from those low thirties numbers is the old neocon refrain of the Iranian menace. This clashes with the official line of the pundit legions, which is that the neocons have been sent out to pasture and replaced in the corridors of power by "pragmatists". We even heard Michael Gordon of the New York Times and his co-author Bernard Trainor, while flacking their new history of the Iraq war on Amy Goodman, claim that the neocons were "on the outside" during the planning and execution of the Iraq war. That was before Goodman spoiled Gordon's day by bringing up all those WMD fantasy pieces he wrote with Judy Miller. Anyone who needs reminding on just how the neocons did it last time, the better to prepare for the next war, would do worse than keep by their hand the IHS Press compilation Neo-Conned Again, which kicks off with a contribution from your two CounterPunch editors.

Michael Gordon who lied with Judy now pushes his war pornography off on the American public. Be sure to read C.I.'s entry from this morning, "NYT: Can't own up to mistakes, be it the paper or Michael Gordon." And "war pornography" is what C.I.'s been calling Gordon's nonsense all week. I've adopted it as my own phrase. You should too. And if you're confused as to why, read the opening of "And the war drags on (Indymedia roundup)." Now go get active.


















Ruth's Public Radio Report

Ruth: Before we start by highlighting some Pacifia Radio programming, please note that KPFA will broadcast protest coverage on Saturday beginning around noon Pacific Time, three p.m. Eastern Time.

This week, I'll start with CounterSpin. A note on the links, I do not provide them. Dallas and C.I. hunt them down and the tags as well. Last week, CounterSpin wasn't linked in the entry although it is a permanent link on the left side of the site. That was an unintentional mistake and, if you look at the amount of links and tags in most of my reports, you will see that Dallas and C.I. are tracking down a great deal. Trevor had e-mailed with a question on that, so I hope that clears it up.

The broadcast began with Steve Rendall and Peter Hart discussing recent news coverage. These items are always make me laugh, not due to the mistakes by the mainstream media, but for the manner in which Mr. Rendall, Mr. Hart and, especially, Janine Jackson deliver them in.
Peter Hart delivered my favorite item this week:

TV pundits are free to say what they want, that's sort of the point. But when reporters step into pundit mode you hope they don't leave behind their journalistic duty to provide evidence for what they're saying. But sometimes that's exactly what happens. On ABC's This Week on March 12th, reporter Clair Shipman jumped into the debate over censuring George W. Bush over illegal NSA wiretaps. To Shipman this made no sense for the Democrats. QUOTE "You look at the polls, the public supports the president on this issue. So I'm still a bit confused on how much this is going to help them." Well except that's not what the polls say. When asked whether Bush has the legal authority to do this, the most recent CBS poll found fifty-two percent of the public say he does not. On Fox News channel the next day the pundits on the show Special Report were discussing the Iraq war which led NPR reporter Mara Liasson to make this claim. QUOTE "Poll after poll has shown that no matter how pessimistic Americans are about Iraq, there is no big support for a pull out now movement. In other words, still it's like one-in-six think we should withdraw our troops. There is basic support for the project of forming some kind of a stable democracy in Iraq." That's a curious assertion since the latest CBS poll showed twenty-nine percent of the public favor immediate withdrawal of US troops which is more than one-in-six. Another thirty-percent favor decreasing troop levels. And that same poll found that fifty-four percent of Americans think Iraq will never become a stable democracy. Instead of reporting on polls, these reporter/pundits seem to be wishing that the public would see things the way they see them.

Mr. Hart interviewed Jack Fairweather who wrote "Heroes in Error: How a fake general, a pliant media, and a master manipulator helped lead the United States into war" for Mother Jones. Mr. Fairweather stated that "the man presented to the New York Times and Frontline was, in fact, a complete imposter." The man was presented as an Iraqi general who told a tale of terrorist training camps where Arabs were being taught to hijack planes. The story, like the "general," was made up. The New York Times has not corrected its report. Frontline has offered a minor correction on their website. Mr. Fairweather noted that the paper of record's "famous but rather tepid mea culpa" has not resulted in "back reporting" to determine the veracity of their pre-invasion coverage.

Mr. Rendall interviewed Ben Bagdikian regarding the purchase of the Knight-Ridder news chain by the McClatchy newspaper chain. Mr. Bagdikian is a media critic of many years and the author of the groundbreaking book The Media Monopoly. Many issues were addressed including the myth that newspapers do not turn a profit. The reality is that they do. The same profit margin that would have pleased investors years ago is no longer seen as enough of a profit by Wall Street analysts. Mr. Bagdikian noted that, for most Americans, the primary source of news remain the newspaper or TV coverage. Therefore, losing the Knight-Ridder chain is a blow since it has shown more independence than many other news print organizations. The chain included the Miami Herald whose coverage of Latin America was noted by Mr. Bagidkian. Mr. Rendall noted the willingness by Knight-Ridder to question the official narratives coming out of D.C.

The purchase of the Knight-Ridder news chain was a topic that Mr. Rendall discussed with Andrea Lewis and Philip Maldari on KPFA's The Morning Show Tuesday. McClatchy will not be keeping all of the thirty-two Knight-Ridder newspapers they purached, twelve will be sold off.
Why does the sell matter? As Mr. Rendall noted, "It takes another voice out of the debate.
. . . They were one of theonly mainstream news outlets that consistently challenged the government's case for war with Iraq." Mr. Rendall felt that it was better for the paper to be purchased by McClatchy instead of another buyer but he also noted "where there were two independent voices, now there are one."

On the subject of voices, Friday Ms. Lewis interviewed Norman Solomon who stated that, "If we are not trying to end the war through all forms of pacifist activities, we are allowing it to continue." Words to remember on this third anniversary of the invasion. As Mr. Solomon noted, "It's so much easier to continue a war than to stop it." Interviewed with Mr. Solomon was Bill Hackwell, of ANSWER, who made the point that demonstrations are taking place all over the country and all over the world.

Norman Solomon will be speaking at an event at Walnut Creek. He will be speaking on a number of topics including the building of "an agenda for war . . . [that] then tries to make an argument through media and Washington high office that you can't leave now." If I have this correctly, this will be a march and a rally with the rally beginning at noon in Civic Park and will include many people but a name that stood out to me was Country Joe McDonald, it will stand out to you as well if you also are part of the babyboom generation.



Each week I have "Geoff Brady" in my notes. He is the producer of Law and Disorder. I believe he also selects the music and that this was noted last month on WBAI when he and Heidi Boghosian were handling the fundraising duties. Each week, Mondays for me since I listen on WBAI, the program has wonderful music. Kelley wondered "who that woman was with the song was that aired during the music discussion?" It was Melanie performing her song "What They've Done To My Song, Ma?"

The music discussion was conducted by Michael Smith and the guests were The Trouble With Music author Matt Calahan and Eli Smith who is a musican and music producer from New York. He is also, as he pointed out, Mr. Smith's son. This was a very interesting discussion about copyright law, who benefits and who does not. Do not read that and think, "Copyright, huh? Pass." This was a very lively discussion about the effects that copyright law have on the development of new ideas and art as well as on the way it can be used to the harm of musicians.
One very important point that I think may raise some people's interest in the issue is a basic question: What is always given away free or at very little cost?

Did you answer music? To help the radio industry develop, audiences were provided with music at no direct cost. As Steve Jobs and others promote iPods, once again, we see music being used to promote the products at little or no cost. How does that impact you? Listen to the show.

Paul Craig Roberts, a Republican from the Reagan administration who writes for CounterPunch and other publications, was the first guest on Law & Disorder. He attempted to put the neocons in power in the Bully Boy's administration into historical perspective. He also commented on the Lynne Stewart case and that he found the conviction "outrageous." He noted that Stewart was charged not with breaking a law but with breaking a "decree." The issue of the law was the focus for his segment with Roberts discussing how Bully Boy is "asserting that he is the law or above the law."

The middle segment was testimony from Black Panther Hank Jones on how he, Harold Taylor
and John Bowman were rounded up for a 1971 shooting. Mr. Jones draws clear parallels between the actions then, under Nixon, and now, under the Bully Boy. Listen and be appalled by the actions that are going on now and how similar they were to a time people of my generation thought we said "Never again" to.

I believe this event was noted on Law and Disorder, I have it in the margins of my notes:

Date:
Sunday, March 19th 2006
Time:
2:00 PM - TBA
Location:
Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church,
85 South Oxford Street (at Lafayette),
Fort Greene
City/State:
Fort Greene, Brooklyn, NY
Category:
Veterans
Contact: bpfp@brooklynpeace.org
Website: http://www.brooklynpeace.org
On the Third Anniversary of the Iraq War..
BACK FROM IRAQ:
NYC VETS SPEAK OUT
Come hear:
Testimonies of NYC Veterans,
Congressman Major Owens,
and Job Mashariki of Black Veterans for Social Justice
Many vets are returning home to face unemployment, homelessness, mental and physical health problems, and a lack of adequate services. Come hear about their experiences.

This weekend it is important to be active. I hope you will find a way to take part and be heard.
If nothing else, invite friends over to listen to KPFA's live broadcast beginning at noon Pacific time Saturday, three p.m. Eastern. But please do something. Make your voice heard, even if it is only among your friends and family.

























Estados Unidos lanza mayor ataque aereo desde invasion a Irak (Democracy Now!)

Maria: Buenos dias. De parte de "Democracy Now!" diez cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana. Paz.


Estados Unidos lanza mayor ataque aéreo desde invasión a Irak
Soldados estadounidenses e iraquíes lanzaron lo que las Fuerzas Armadas denominan el mayor ataque aéreo en los tres años desde que comenzó la invasión a Irak. En un comunicado de prensa, el ejército dijo que se desplegaron más de 1.500 soldados y 50 aviones en un "área donde se sospecha que opera la insurgencia" en el noreste de Samarra. Se espera que la operación "Enjambre" dure varios días. Hasta ahora no se han informado muertes.


Culpan a ataques estadounidenses de la muerte de integrantes de una familia iraquí
Mientras tanto, se responsabiliza a un ataque militar estadounidense a la localidad iraquí de Balad, de la muerte de por lo menos una docena de integrantes de una familia. Entre los muertos se encontraban cinco niños y seis mujeres. "Associated Press" informa que la casa de esta familia fue derribada por un ataque aéreo de un helicóptero estadounidense. Las víctimas fueron envueltas en mantas y llevadas al Hospital General de Tíkrit. Ahmed Khalaf, el hermano de una de las víctimas, dijo: "La familia asesinada no era parte de la resistencia, eran mujeres y niños. Los estadounidenses nos prometieron una vida mejor, pero sólo obtenemos muerte".


Nueva encuesta: 36 por ciento aprueba gestión de Bush, mientras que el 60 por ciento dice que la guerra va mal
Bush anunció durante un discurso que lanzó una nueva campaña de relaciones públicas para obtener más apoyo para la guerra en Irak y su presidencia. La última encuesta de "USA Today"/CNN indica que el índice de aprobación del presidente es de sólo el 36 por ciento. Y el 60 por ciento de la población del país dice que la guerra en Irak va mal.




Principal general estadounidense en Irak señala que bases militares podrían volverse permanentes
En otras noticias, el principal comandante militar estadounidense en Irak señaló que Estados Unidos podría tener intenciones de mantener varias bases militares que construyó en este país. El General John Abizaid, compareció el martes ante un subcomité del Congreso y dijo que Estados Unidos podría querer conservar su posición en Irak para apoyar a los "moderados" regionales y proteger los suministros de petróleo.




Informe: Ataques aéreos estadounidenses aumentan un 50 por ciento en Irak
En otras noticias sobre Irak, "Knight Ridder" informa que el gobierno estadounidense incrementó los ataques aéreos más de un 50 por ciento en los últimos cinco meses. Según las cifras militares, las fuerzas estadounidenses arrojaron al menos el doble de bombas en ciudades iraquíes que durante el mismo período el año pasado. Este año, los aviones de guerra estadounidenses atacaron por lo menos 18 ciudades distintas.




Nivel más bajo de generación eléctrica en Irak desde período posterior a la invasión
En otras noticias sobre Irak, "Associated Press" informa que la generación eléctrica alcanzó el nivel más bajo desde el período posterior a la invasión estadounidense a Irak, hace tres años. Algunos analistas creen que Irak podría tener que recurrir a su país vecino, Irán, para resolver la crisis energética, este mismo verano. El sistema eléctrico de Irak sufrió numerosos problemas desde que fue atacado en la invasión dirigida por Estados Unidos en 1991. Actualmente, es capaz de cubrir menos de la mitad de las necesidades de Irak. La preocupación de los iraquíes por la recuperación del sistema ha aumentando debido a la disminución de los fondos de reconstrucción provenientes de Estados Unidos. Según el inspector general para la reconstrucción de Irak, los fondos actuales son de 200 millones de dólares menos que los necesarios para cubrir las necesidades mínimas del sistema.




Soldado británico de élite se niega a luchar con Estados Unidos en Irak
En Gran Bretaña, un soldado de la élite SAS (Servicio Especial Aéreo) se niega a volver a luchar en Irak en lo que describe como una guerra de agresión moralmente incorrecta. Se cree que el soldado, Ben Griffin, es el primer soldado del SAS en negarse a luchar y en abandonar el ejército por motivos morales. Griffin dijo que se negaba a luchar junto con soldados estadounidenses porque veían a los iraquíes como "untermenschen", el término Nazi para denominar razas consideradas infrahumanas. También acusó a los soldados estadounidenses de cometer "docenas de actos ilegales" en Irak.




Más de 500 eventos planificados para conmemorar el tercer año de la guerra en Irak
Y mientras la invasión y ocupación de Irak cumplen su tercer año este domingo, los activistas están organizando eventos en contra de la guerra en todo el mundo. Tan sólo en Estados Unidos, se llevarán a cabo al menos 500 protestas durante el fin de semana. United for Peace and Justice (Unidos por la Paz y la Justicia) organizó actividades en los 50 estados. Algunas comenzaron a principios de esta semana. Una marcha de veteranos por la paz, que comenzó el martes en Alabama, terminará en Nueva Orleáns. Según "USA Today", una nueva encuesta indica que el 60 por ciento de los estadounidenses creen que la guerra no "valía la pena". En Londres, Stop the War Coalition llevará a cabo una protesta el sábado para exigir la retirada de los soldados estadounidenses y británicos de Irak. Manifestaciones similares se llevarán a cabo en ciudades de Irak, así como también en México, Japón, y en otras partes de Europa.



Estados Unidos criticado por juzgar a prisionero detenido desde que tenía 15 años de edad
Esta noticia es sobre la Bahía de Guantánamo. Los abogados de derechos humanos le pedirán hoy a la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos que suspenda el tribunal militar de un ciudadano canadiense que ha estado detenido en la prisión militar desde que tenía 15 años. Los abogados dijeron que Omar Khadr es la primer persona en la historia del mundo moderno en afrontar una comisión militar por presuntos delitos cometidos cuando era niño.



Sandra Day O'Connor advierte que Estados Unidos se está encaminando hacia la "dictadura"
La ex ministra de la Corte Suprema, Sandra Day O'Connor, advirtió la semana pasada que Estados Unidos corre peligro de encaminarse hacia una dictadura si los derechistas continúan atacando al Poder Judicial. En uno de sus primeros discursos públicos desde que abandonó su cargo, O'Connor, que fue postulada por Ronald Reagan, criticó severamente a los republicanos por utilizar tácticas para manipular al Poder Judicial. Según un informe de NPR, O'Connor dijo: "Un país debe degenerarse mucho antes de caer en la dictadura, pero para evitar terminar así, debemos evitar comenzar así".


Maria: Good morning. Now in English, here are ten news stories from Democracy Now! Peace.

US Launches Largest Air Assault Since Iraq Invasion
US and Iraqi troops have launched what the military is calling the largest air assault in the three years since the Iraq invasion. In a press release, the army said over fifteen hundred troops and fifty aircraft have been deployed in a "suspected insurgent operating area" northeast of Samarra. Operation "Swarmer" is expected to last for several days. No casualties have been reported so far.


US Strikes Blamed for Death of Iraqi Family Members
Meanwhile, a US military attack in the Iraqi town of Balad is being blamed for the deaths of at least a dozen members of the same family. The dead include five children and six women. The Associated Press is reporting the family’s house was flattened by an airstrike from a US helicopter. The victims were wrapped in blankets and driven to the Tikrit General Hospital. Ahmed Khalaf, the brother of one of the victims, said: "The dead family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children. The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."


New Poll: 36% Approve Bush; 60% Say War is Going Badly
Bush made the announcement during a speech that launched a new public relations campaign to win greater support for the war in Iraq and his presidency. The latest USA Today/CNN poll shows the president's approval rating is at just 36 percent. And 60 percent of the country says the war in Iraq is going badly.



Top US General in Iraq Says Bases May Be Permanent
In other news, the top US military commander in Iraq has indicated the US may want to hold on to the several military bases it has built in the country. Appearing before a Congressional subcommittee Tuesday, General John Abizaid said the US may want to keep a foothold in Iraq to support regional "moderates" and protect oil supplies.



Report: US Airstrikes Up 50% in Iraq
In further Iraq news, Knight Ridder is reporting the US government has increased airstrikes by more than half in the last five months. According to military figures, US forces have dropped at least double the number of bombs on Iraqi cities than they did during the same period one year ago. This year, U.S. warplanes have struck at least 18 different cities.


Iraq Electricity Output At Lowest Point Since Invasion Aftermath
In other Iraq news, the Associated Press is reporting electricity output has reached its lowest point since the period right after the US invasion of Iraq three years ago. Some analysts believe Iraq may have to turn to neighboring Iran to solve its energy crisis -- as early as this summer. Iraq’s electricity grid has suffered numerous problems since it was targeted in the US-led invasion in 1991. It is currently able to meet less than half of Iraq’s needs. Iraqi concerns for the grid’s recovery have been stoked by dwindling reconstruction funding from the US. According to the inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction, current funding is over $200 million dollars short of meeting the grid’s minimal needs.



Elite UK Soldier Refuses to Fight w/ U.S. in Iraq
In Britain, an elite SAS soldier is refusing to return to fight in Iraq in what he describes as a morally wrong war of aggression. The soldier, Ben Griffin, is believed to be the first SAS soldier to refuse to go into combat and to leave the army on moral grounds. Griffin said he refused to fight alongside U.S. troops because they viewed Iraqis as "untermenschen" -- the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human. He also accused U.S. troops of committing "dozens of illegal acts" in Iraq.



Over 500 Events Planned For Events Marking Third Year of Iraq War
And as the invasion and occupation of Iraq reaches the three-year mark this Sunday, activists are staging anti-war events around the world. At least 500 protests are being held in the US this weekend alone. United for Peace and Justice has organized actions in all 50 states. Some began earlier this week. A veterans march for peace, which began in Alabama Tuesday, will end in New Orleans. According to USA Today, a new poll shows 60 percent of Americans believe the war was not "worth it." In London, the Stop the War Coalition will stage a protest Saturday to demand the withdrawal of US and British troops from Iraq. Similar demonstrations are to be held in cities in Iraq, as well as in Mexico, Japan, and other parts of Europe.



U.S. Criticized for Trying Detainee Held Since He Was 15
In news from Guantanamo Bay, human rights lawyers will be asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights today to suspend the military tribunal of a Canadian citizen who has been held at the military prison since he was 15 years old. Lawyers said Omar Khadr is the first person in modern world history to face a military commission for alleged crimes committed as a child.


Sandra Day O'Connor Warns About U.S. Edging Towards 'Dictatorship'
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned last week that the United States is in danger of edging towards a dictatorship if right-wingers continued to attack the judiciary. In one of her first public speeches since leaving the bench, O'Connor -- who was nominated by Ronald Reagan -- sharply criticized Republicans for strong-arming the judiciary. According to a report on NPR, O'Connor said "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."







Cedric and Rebecca

Repost of Cedric's Thursday entry:

"Russ Feingold and the Dems"
Go to the comments from Tuesday. There's a link someone left to a thing where you can show support for Russ Feingold. So check that out. My plan was to highlight it here. But I can't read my site right now and you can't either. Try to and you get this message:


Blog under maintenance
This blog is temporarily not viewable.

Friday, I'll try to highlight the comment that was left. I believe it was by a woman but I'm not sure. I saw it this morning at work and it's a link that you have to copy and paste. If you don't know how that works, take your mouse, right click over the link address to highlight it, after it's highlighted, take your finger off the right click, then left click and choose "copy." From there, go up to the top of your web page where "address" is, delete the address shown and then left click and choose "paste." That'll put the address in the address bar and you can just click on "GO" or hit the "enter" key.

Most people probably know how to do that but I know everyone doesn't because Three Cool Old Guys were asking me about that Sunday and I showed them what to do.

Rebecca wrote a must read "you don't need a pollster to know which way the wind blows" about how Democrats stabbed Russ Feingold in the back.

Feingold Criticizes Fellow Dems Bush Measure (Democracy Now!):
Here in the United States, Senator Russ Feingold has lashed out at fellow Democrats for not supporting his measure to censure President Bush for his warrantless domestic spy program. Feingold has failed to attract any co-sponsors. Appearing on Fox News, Feingold said: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. … Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004.… [Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you're helping the terrorists."

And because the Hillarys and Bidens and Liebermans stabbed him in the back, the Republicans are trying to play this as "Now we're going to win in 2006!" In the New York Times, that nonsense was treated as fact in an article called "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry To Bush's Base." C.I. addresses it in "NYT: It's only news when Republicans issue statements" but why does C.I. have to address it? Because big media sucks. Because they had no interest in reporting on the impeachment in the New York Times and no real interest in the censure until they had Republicans crowing, "It's a win for us!"If the Dems couldn't get behind a censure, how are we supposed to believe that they'll support an impeachment? And if they can't impeach over an illegal war, over warrantless spying, what can they do?

News flash for the Times, in an election year, anything that happens will be a 'rallying cry.'
That's what C.I. wrote and it's true. And it's why the Dems lose. They refuse to do anything. If they do something, it might give the other side ammo. So they do nothing. Over and over.
I'm really getting tired of the do-nothing Dems. There are ones that will stand up. Russ Feingold did. And John Conyers will and Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee. There really are some who will stand up. But most of them are scared little cowards, cowering in the shadows.

And then they wonder why they're seen the way they are.

It's an election year and their strategy seems to be don't say anything, don't do anything. We're in the lead because Bully Boy has screwed up so we're going to win.Meanwhile, the Republicans are running, they're trying to win. When they pass the Democrats who are standing still, the Dems won't even notice.

It happened in 2004. They attacked John Kerry all during the GOP convention and the people on Kerry's campaign just sat around and watched it.

Like they were thinking, "We have a lead, we don't have to worry."

They do have to worry. They have to worry about doing nothing.

They let all the stupid worries stop them from doing anything.

Democrats support abortion. You can play with that all you want and run all the Repubes in Dem's clothing you want, but Democrats support abortion. Stop running from what you are.
Democrats support Bully Boy paying for his illegal spying and illegal war. They're doing the same thing they always do. Stand around and do nothing because they're sure they'll win that way. And when they lose, they'll scratch their heads and blame everything but themselves.

Here's the comment:

If you want Senator Feingold to run for President in 2008, please, come over to http://russfeingoldpetition.blogspot.com/ and sign the petition.
Thanks for your time.

Cedric and Rebecca will post at some point today. They, Betty, Ava, Jess, Ty, Dona, Jim and myself participated in a discussion for Polly's newsletter immediately after finishing the one for the gina & krista round-robin last night.

Check out Rebecca's "never cheerlead an illegal war." Here's the song that opens that entry:


what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
bit of reality to burst your bubble.
that's what you get for all your trouble
mara liasson, never cheerlead a war again.

what do you get when you rah-rah-rah?
americans coming home with worse than pneumonia
some of whom can never phone you
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again.

don't tell me what's it all about
because you were a fool and people died
from those lies
your lies that bind you
that is why i'm here to remind you.

what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
you only get lies and pain and sorrow
so take a vow for peaceful tomorrows
never cheerlead an illegal war again.
never cheerlead an illegal war again.



Dallas is hunting down Ruth's links. That will go up within the hour.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. Get active, be active, make your voice heard.





NYT: Can't own up to mistakes, be it the paper or Michael Gordon

Before we deal with news of the morning (or what made it into print this morning), we're flashing back to March 25, 2003.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, we have now learned from the U.S. Central Command that, in fact, Iraqi television and is also a key telecommution -- communications facility, as well as Baghdad's, Baghdad's satellite communications, have all been targeted, both by Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and by ordnance dropped from the air as well.
So a number of precision-guided munitions were used to take out a group of buildings that comprise something that makes up Iraqi television and also satellite communications as well. The stated purpose of this, according to the U.S. Central Command, is simply to take away command (UNINTELLIGIBLE) control capabilities from the regime.
And again, a senior administration official here in Washington tells CNN that it was always the plan not to take out the television from day one, that it served a purpose for a while. But under the war plan, there's a sequence of events that happens in a specific order to try to create the effect of undermining the regime. And in that sequence, today was the day that Iraqi television was scheduled to be taken out, Aaron.
BROWN: Jamie, thank you very much.

The above is from CNN's rush transcript for the March 25, 2003 broadcast of CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN. We're going back to it (the above was to set up that day's event) and, yes, there is a point. Here's the New York Times' Michael Gordon on the same program.

So I think the headline really is, shift of focus in the ground attack to the south. The air is continuing to focus on the Republican Guard in the north. And, you know, it's an adaptation, and I think really a necessary one.
And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target.

Gordon wasn't asked, by Brown or anyone else, according to the transcript -- read it yourself, about the bombing of Iraqi television, he brings it up himself and, above, is his full statement.
At the top of the program, the day's events are explained and they include that "a number of precision-guided munitions were used to take out a group of buildings that comprise something that makes up Iraqi television." The embed Gordon (he identifies himself that way on air), brings up the topic without prompting and states:

And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target.

Now we're going to yesterday's Democracy Now! ("New York Times Chief Military Correspondent Michael Gordon Defends Pre-War Reporting on WMDs"). Here is what Juan Gonzalez asked him:

JUAN GONZALEZ: There was, of course, the bombing of Iraqi television that occurred in the early days of the war. And you were actually on CNN where you were quoted as saying, "Personally, I think that the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda, that I think it was an appropriate target." And your, in retrospect, on that, that was condemned by many journalism organizations around the world, the attacking of Iraqi television. Your thoughts on it?

Now let's go through Judith Miller's former writing partner, who has now turned war pornographer, response, in full, to a direct question from Gonzalez:


MICHAEL GORDON: Well, I think when--you know, I don't know what was in General Franks' mind when he meant "media targets." I think General Franks has an odd way of talking, if you're familiar, if you've listened to him a lot or are familiar with him, and he's not always -- I don't want to cast any aspersions on him, but he's not always precise in his language. I think by "media targets" in that context, really what he meant was command-control communications.
But here was the issue: in the first war, they knocked Iraqi TV off the air. I'm not calling, and I shouldn't be interpreted as calling on the United States to bomb, you know, TV technicians--some of my best friends are TV technicians; I don't care if they're American or Iraqi. I don't want people to bomb TV stations per se, but I think that one of the problems they were had was keeping Iraqi television off the air, either through electronic jamming or by, you know, if you could hit an antenna, or, you know, hit a some sort of, you know, cable, or, you know, if there was some way of doing it.


He was asked to explain his statement saying that a civilian target, a TV station, was an appropriate target. Did Gonzalez mention Tommy Franks? No, he did not. Why Gordon brings up Franks is anyone's guess. No, Gordon didn't 'call' for a bombing of Iraqi TV, he merely justified it, after the fact, on his own, with no prompting from Aaron Brown. He brought the bombing up, on CNN in real time, on his own and justified it. Now, pressed on it yesterday, he can't admit what he did it. He can't own what he did. Why? Because it's that damn disgusting.

It goes against journalism, it goes against the rules of engagement for warfare. But he was there, in real time, to cheerlead a military attack on a civilian target. Now? He wants to act as though he was asked about Tommy Franks. By by Aaron Brown, Juan Gonzalez or his own craven ego desperate to save himself, I don't know. But he appears to think someone mentioned Tommy Franks.

(Or maybe the good embed just always pictures Franks in his head -- fully dressed or not, I wouldn't know.)

Here's the rest of "I schilled for the administration" Gordon's response to Juan Gonzalez' question:

And the reason this became a big problem was because the Americans were invading Iraq, they were hoping that the Shia would help them and support them. And yet, Saddam was on the TV all the time, telling his public that, in fact, the Americans were losing and he was winning, and so when the American intelligence experts were trying to say "well how come in the cities they're not rising up?" well, they weren't rising up for two reasons. One, he had the Fedayeen in these cities to kill anybody who rose up. That was a very -- you know, that discouraged a lot of people from rebelling. And two, Saddam was on the air all the time. So, what I believe is it would have been better if we had some way of knocking out that broadcasting capability, not through killing people in a television studio, but through electronic jamming or if you could hit an antenna somewhere, you know, the kind of stuff they managed to do in the first Gulf War.

Michael Gordon's been volunteering for the administration for so long that he may have confused his actual occupation but his profession is supposed to be "journalist." It is never okay for journalists to be targeted in military attacks. Gordon's war-on's gone limp enough that he's got enough blood rushing to the head to realize how shameful his 2003 appearance was. So he pretends on Democracy Now! yesterday that the issue is Tommy Franks. He pretends that any of this has to do with Tommy Franks and not with what he himself said in 2003 (without any prompting from Aaron Brown). He pretends that he didn't justify the targeting of a journalistic institution.

He sidesteps the issues by hauling in his buddy Tommy Franks.

Let's be really clear because clarity escaped Michael Gordon long ago: what he stated on CNN was offensive to his profession, it was offensive to the rules of engagement for warfare. What he did was justify a war crime. There was nothing journalistic about his statement. Now, three years later, when the shines gone off the war he sold and his war-on's a little limp he wants to pretend like what happened didn't happen. What happened was that Michael Gordon betrayed his profession and journalists everywhere by endorsing the illegal action of targeting a journalistic institution (TV station). What happened was that he demonstrated he can carry water for the administration, he just can't step up to the plate for his profession.

It does not matter what Tommy Franks thought (he's not even brought up -- by either Gonzalez or by Brown). It matters what a journalist (and that's what Gordon's supposed to be) endorsed. He can claim this year that some of his best friends are TV technicians. (Which strikes me a bit like a racist claiming, "Some of my best friends are Black.") It doesn't matter. There's nothing to hide behind. There's no way to rewrite what he chose to say.

Judith Miller's writing partner should have grasped that the public record is the public record. But when she went down for all of the writing (including pieces that he co-wrote), he may have thought that he was "safe." He isn't "safe."

He will be held accountable for his "reporting" and he will be held accountable for his statements. He can shift the blame (as he did to Tommy Franks) and he can confuse the issue (as he did repeatedly) and he can avoid questions (ditto). Didn't work too well for Judith Miller but he thinks he can get away with it.

Miller's apparently revising (yet again) in the current Vanity Fair and has dropped her brief "I was wrong" stance. Check the site, but I don't believe I ever slammed her for admitting she was wrong. I don't believe I went to town on her for that statement. I remember stating that I thought, in fact, the Times should have let her go back to work following those statements because, having been used, she destroyed her own reputation and she might be the one to rebuild it. (For her "name" or some other reason -- self-serving or not.) Now Miller's apparently playing "It wasn't my fault, it was everyone else's." Well she had one moment of honesty. That's one more than Michael Gordon's had. So is Gordon going to be held accountable?

[Added: Miller has not changed her stance in the Vanity Fair article. Her remarks quoted in Vanity Fair are in keeping with what she has stated since going to jail with an addition of a conversation she says she had with Bill Keller -- Bill Keller denies the remark attributed to him by Miller.]

Or was all the late-to-the-party outrage over Judith Miller just a way to play "bash the bitch"?
Will Gordon get a pass because of his gender? He needs to be held accountable. He tried to avoid accountability yesterday. He talked down to Amy Goodman (whose won her share of journalism praise -- including the Polk award), he tried to lecture her, he tried to do everything but speak to his own incompetence.

That's what it was, at best, journalistic incompetence.

He wants to tell Amy Goodman that she's not "very well informed." Him. The man, who with Judith Miller, pushed every bit of nonsense you can imagine. He wants to say that Amy Goodman's not "very well informed"?

If he is "informed" in the slightest, he's too busy rewriting history (call it what it is, he's "lying") to take accountability. At one point, he told Goodman, "I don't have a dog in this fight." Oh but he does. It's called truth, it's called reporting. That's his "dog" in the fight. He did his job poorly (that's being generous). His "dog" was the truth. But he doesn't feel that he had a "dog" in "the fight." (In the fight? What an arm chair warrior.)

After selling lies for the adminstration, he wants to point to the "public record" and he tells Amy Goodman, at one point, that after selling lies, MONTHS after peddling them, he wrote a new version (buried inside the paper, as Goodman notes), a revision. That doesn't excuse his earlier "reporting."

Let's be clear on this, and it will be our focus for today's highlight from the paper, anyone can be wrong. That's not the issue. It's not that a source alleged something and he reported the allegation as an allegation. What he did was trumpet spin as fact. That's not reporting. If he'd done his basic job, he'd have the very real excuse of, "All that happened was I got burned by a source. It happens."

But he wasn't burned because he didn't practice the "balance" that the Times puts forward. He ran with claims and charges that weren't established as fact but he presented them as though they were. He led with lies. He pushed them.

That's not reporting. That's stenography.

(A lot like the current book he's hawking.)

He's very good at taking down minutes for the administration. Don't confuse it with reporting.

On the issue of the infamous (proven false) piece he and Judith Miller wrote on aluminum pipes (September 13, 2002) being sought for nuclear weapons, Gordon refuses to take accountability. Months later, he says urging that the "public record" be checked, he refuted the claim he put forward (with Miller). In fact, it was disputed in real time. The IAEA disputed it days before his co-written article ran. But readers of the Times didn't learn that . . . until months later. There's no excuse for that. Others had already reported the reality before his embarrassing piece of administration stenography ran.

He tosses out, "But as soon as the IAEA went public with its assessment, I covered it." Well others covered it days prior to September 13th, not months later. (September 13, 2002 is when Miller and Gordon's "reporting" on aluminum tubes ran.)

He tells Amy Goodman that she's not "very well informed on this" because he's friends with David Albright. Gordon, we're all glad to know you have a few friends. It's good to know not everyone avoids you. Even those who fail at their profession should be able to have downtime and play dates. But Goodman never claimed you were or weren't friends with anyone. Goodman, and America, could care less who you are friends with. The issue was the aluminum tubes and hiding behind your friend Albright (who even you have to admit challenged the aluminum tubes lies) and his belief of other aspects doesn't justify the fact that the Times didn't present dissenting voices. Or, for that matter, that you didn't.

(On a friendship level, not a journalism one, it's actually a betrayal that a dissenter whom Gordon claims is a friend was also shut out by the likes of Gordon. He's not a very good reporter so it may not be a leap to infer that he's not a very good friend either.)

He refuses to take accountability for his actions. He wants to hide behind Albright or Franks, as though they co-wrote his pieces or made the statements he made on his own while appearing on CNN. He needs to be responsible for himself.

And his lies (and the lies of others) helped the administration sell an illegal war, helped scare the public. Now he wants to claim that the public record vindicates him, that because Colin Powell said whatever, he's somehow off the hook.

He's not. He's supposed to be a reporter and he did his job very poorly.

He can attack Goodman (and he did and thank you to ___ who said he would Thursday night, "Watch, you'll see how he behaves in the office" -- yes, I did see and do understand why so many at the Times complain to me about him). He can avoid answering questions (and he did). He can shift the blame to everyone else (and he did). But, point of fact, Colin Powell and anyone else he wants to hide behind, they aren't reporters.

That an administration flunkie lied is not surprising. That a reporter didn't challenge the lies is sad. It's very sad. And while Colin Powell wants to minimize about the "blot" on his record, Gordon won't even own up to a blot.

Now he wants to peddle war pornography. He wants to sell the American public on how the war could have been "won" if only this had been done or that had been done. When asked about the war itself, by Goodman, he responds: "Well, that's a policy judgment and a political judgment that’s really beyond the scope of our book."


Over 2300 dead American troops because an illegal war was sold on lies and the best Gordon (who had a hand in selling it) can do is say, "That's a policy judgment"? [Note that the link for that goes to the first half of the broadcast. We're focused on the second half for most of the comments comments but for those who see a link and think "Oh, it's going to the same thing and I already read it" -- his "policy judgement" comes from the first half of the program.]

If that's his idea of neutrality or objectivity, it's a funny sort of understanding. He wasn't neutral or objective on journalists being targeted with bombs (he was for it at the time, though now he tries to rewrite reality). He wasn't neutral or objective when false claims were made before the invasion by the administration (he was pimping them like there was no tomorrow). But on the war he helped sell, it's a "policy judgement." On the war that's cost an unkown number of Iraqi lives, he's neutral.

Too bad he had no neutrality when he and his profession needed it.

Now? Now the little boy who cried wolf (more than once) wants to pin it all on big sis Judy. He wants to act as though it wasn't him, it was that older sister Judith Miller. Why, he played with Jimmy Risen and lots of other boys! He wasn't just spending all day inside playing WMD dress up with Judy. He was a tough boy.

Whatever he is, whatever he was, it wasn't a reporter.

And that needs to be remembered as he peddles excuses. It's no surprise that his book is nothing but war pornography as he attempts to sell American on more occupation, on better planned occupation. It's nothing but an excuse for an illegal war. And an endorsement for the continuation of it. (Excuse me, for the continuation of a "policy decision.") Not surprising. He's still making excuses for his own part in selling the "policy decision."

Little boy Gordon might want to consider borrowing a bit from an old Steve Martin routine and parroting "Excuse me." It wouldn't be convincing, but it would, at least, be a step in the right direction.

It's a lesser story, and of lesser importance, but in today's paper, you see the same mindset at work. Kate Zernike has to explain how the Times got it so wrong on whom was or wasn't in the infamous Abu Ghraib photo ("Cited as Symbold of Abu Ghraib, Mand Admits He Is Not in Photo"). The problem started for the Times, under Hassan Fattah's byline though we're all supposed to forget that, because the Times wanted to push/rush a "scoop." They didn't have a scoop. They didn't have anything. (As Zernike notes today, but much nicer than I'm noting here.)

A man claimed to be the guy in the photo. It wasn't a scoop and the paper wasn't sharing credit when they were trying to maintain that they were breaking news. Maybe they were? Vanity Fair had only reported (in 2005) that the man claimed to be the one in the hood, not that he was the man in the photograph.

If people had been aware of both stories, they would have noted what was the most glaring aspect of the story: the Times had no verification for their story. Now they're having to correct the record.

Vanity Fair may or may not. They really don't have to. That's because Donovan Webster (and Van Fair) weren't stupid enough to present a claim as fact. They noted that the man (same man) claimed to be the man in the photo; they also noted, repeatedly, that the claim couldn't be verified. That's called reporting.

Had Fattah done it (or Gordon), the Times wouldn't be in the mess they are. When the Times pushed the non-scoop, they avoided crediting or acknowledging Vanity Fair's year-old report. To do so would have taken the shine off their own scoop.

As soon as the scoop fizzled, suddenly, in print, in the Times, you could read of how Vanity Fair reported it too! The whine, the pout, shows up when their story was questioned. When it's time to be questioned, suddenly the Times can hide behind others. (Again, note that Webster did not say it was the man in the photo in his own story -- he was very clear that it was a claim and that it couldn't be verified. Additional note: see end of this commenatry.)

Fattah needs to be disciplined. The editor who okayed the story needs to go. That's very basic. They pushed a story. Fattah may have been close to it and too pressed for a deadline to see the problems with the story. That's why editors exist. They're supposed to be the calming influence, the one that asks, "Do we really have enough to run with this?" They didn't have enough to run the story as it was written. Fattah should have been instructed to present qualifiers clearly within the text. That didn't happen. That's the editor's failure. And someone should lose their job for it.

That may seem harsh but it's reality. It was the editor's job to know of the Vanity Fair article. Since the Times was in "scoop" mode, it was the editor's job to read the Van Fair piece. If that had been done, Donovan's repeated qualifiers should have stood out and the editor's question should have immediately been, "Do we have enough support to run this as fact?" They didn't.

In the real world (as opposed to the world of the Grey Lady), someone would lose a job. It should be the editor. The Times usual way of dealing with this is either to ignore it or to kick the person upstairs where they can't do any damage. (I'd argue about whether or not they can still do damage.) The editor can remain at the paper or not but should be removed from the position of editor. There's no excuse for it. Fattah may have been too high on the story. Too close to it.
That's why an editor exists, to say, "Let's pull back a second and look at what we really have factually."

That either did not happen (I'm told that it didn't) or else the editor weighed the piece and weighed what the Times did have (not much) and decided that there was enough to run with the story as is. That wasn't just a mistake, that was evidence that someone's not up to the responsibilities of the position they hold.

Though it got a huge amount of attention, this was a minor story. It was a feature trying real hard to be a news article. But the danger is that the same editor could make the same sort of mistake on an important story (say one written by Michael Gordon -- a star reporter used to having his way). Fattah made a mistake. The editor failed at the job. That would be clear in most newsrooms, but we're speaking of the New York Times where failure means never having to say you're sorry (see Michael Gordon -- "sorry" doesn't exist in his vocabulary) and getting moved upstairs. (It's why the rumors that Judith Miller was offered a position away from reporting are still believed. That's perfectly in keeping with the Times way of "dealing" with a problem. If you're new to the rumor, Miller could have stayed, the rumor says, if she'd agree to stay with the paper in a position other than reporter.)

From Zernike's article:

Mr. Qaissi had been interviewed on a number of earlier occaions, including by PBS's "Now," Vanity Fair, Der Spiegel and in the Italian news media as the man in the box.

That would be PBS's NOW (not Now). I stopped watching shortly before Bill Moyers left the program so I have no idea how the man was presented on NOW. I'm also unfamiliar with the Der Spiegel article (or Italian news reports). But to repeat Vanity Fair (Donovan Webster wrote the article) DID NOT present him as the man "in the box" (the hood). The publication presented him as someone claiming to be him. They were very clear about that. (Zernike earlier notes he was standing on a box, so why she later refers to him as "in the box," I have no idea.)

Webster actually gets mentioned inside the paper (the article is a front page article that continues inside the paper). It's nice that he finally gets the credit he's earned; however, readers of the paper may not be aware that Webster didn't maintain that it was the man in the hood. As I remember the article, he went to great pains to note that it could not be verified. Webster focused on the larger issue of torture itself. (This is now verified see end of this commentary.)

On A2, an editors' note appears that also doesn't name Fattah as the author of the non-scoop that backfired. In addition, the "Editors' Note" tries to weasel out of it by bringing up Vanity Fair:

Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge.

Two things. First, Vanity Fair did not, repeat, did not say he was the man in the hood. That is fact. Read the article. (I intend to as soon as I'm finally home -- after this weekend's protests.)
There was no reason to "challenge" Van Fair's article because the article was about what went on in Abu Ghraib. It was not "THIS IS THE MAN IN THE PHOTO!" However, second point, since the Times appears to be stating, in the editor's note, that they were aware of the reporting on others, why did they present last Saturday's story as a "scoop"? There was nothing in that article to indicate they were building on the work of other media outlets.

When they thought they had a scoop, they were happy to play glory hog and dismiss the work of others. When it blew up in their faces, they want to spread the blame around. That's a big part of the problem with the New York Times and it goes beyond one article.

To their credit, the editors' note does admit that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty did not verify the man as an earlier attempt to weasel out of the mess attempted to imply:

How do they respond to that possibility? It's worth noting, even spotlighting, because it gives you a look into the way things work at the Times. Susan Chira ("foreign editor of The Times") is on record in the story making a statement, that some will find laughable, about how seriously the paper takes charges of possible mistakes. Hassan M. Fattah, who received credit in the byline? He's nowhere to be found. He's not quoted nor is he named. But Chira can attempt to hide behind human rights organizations (Amnesty and Human Rights Watch -- neither of which appear to have confirmed that the person was the hooded man in the famous photo -- only that Shalal was at Abu Ghraib).

Today the "Editors' Note" notes:

The Times also overstated the conviction with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he was.

Additional note. My memory is correct. Donovan Webster used qualifers very cleary. I'm having a trouble getting this entry completed (I've switched to a friend's laptop). Though some will no doubt feel that it should already be up, this entry (and it should be), the delays meant that I was able to speak to a friend at Van Fair who called about the Times. There's not pleasure over the paper of record attempting to hide behind the magazine. I was asked if I was addressing it today? I explained it was addressed and the entry almost completed but I kept getting knocked out of Blogger/Blogspot. (No problems thus far since switching to my friend's laptop.) While on the phone, I did learn that Donovan Webster's article is available online. It has been for some time. (Shortly after we noted it here back in January of last year.)

From the article Webster wrote and Vanity Fair ran:

Another detainee I spoke with may already be well known to Americans, thanks to what is arguably the Iraq war's most iconic image: a hooded man standing on a box, his arms held away from his body in a posture of total, pure, miserable submission, electrical cables trailing from his fingertips.

"May be."

There were at least two photos of a hooded, wired man taken at Abu Ghraib. Evidence suggests he is 46 years old, of medium height, and pale-skinned. He generally dresses in Iraq's traditional male clothing: a red-and-white checked head wrap (called a kaffiyeh), a flowing gown (or dishdasha), and sandals. He is a husband and father of four. His name is Haj Ali. (He asked that his surname not be used; Haj is an honorific signifying he has made the pilgrimage to Mecca.)

"Suggests."

Altogether, it is an easily identified deformity and appears to be visible in one of the famous photos of a man with wires attached to his fingers. (Two slightly different low-resolution pictures, seemingly of the same man, have been released to date. Haj Ali's lawyers believe he's depicted in the photos, although no one can be sure, given the circumstances under which the photos were taken; Haj Ali does claim he was subjected to the same abuse. Unless the guards involved shed light on the matter someday, it will likely remain impossible to say for certain who is pictured.)

"Impossible to say for certain." "No one can be sure."

Donovan Webster and Vanity Fair did not report that the man was the one pictured in the photo. They did use qualifiers and the New York Times needs to stop trying to hide behind Vanity Fair for their own screw up. When the paper, from the top, can't own up to their mistakes and attempts to hide behind others, it's not surprising that Michael Gordon thinks he may be able to do the same.

Maria's got highlights of the week's news and Ruth will have a report. (I may have to farm out the dictation of that to Kat. Computer problems have put me way behind.) Kat will note RadioNation with Laura Flanders and I'll note that I heard Christian Parenti is supposed to be on. Check Kat's entry later today for whether that's correct or not. (My assertion is not verified and just passing on what a friend told me yesterday.) And thank you to TC who offered that his highlight could wait "several days." It will go into Sunday night's entry. There's no problem with his highlight but it does require comment. (The writer's writing does not require comment. You'll see why it requires comment when Sunday's entry goes up. This was highlighted earlier this week in a lost e-mailed entry and it took several paragraphs to address an issue. Hopefully, it will take no more than two on Sunday.) Thank you to TC for understanding.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. That's the public address and I probably won't have time to check it until Sunday or Monday. Members should use the private e-mail address. And if you haven't already checked your e-mail accounts this morning, remember that you have a special edition of the gina & krista round-robin waiting. (One will go out tomorrow as well.)

Before Maria's thing goes up, we will highlight Cedric's Thursday entry here.
















Friday, March 17, 2006

Democracy Now: Michael Gordon, Bernard Trainor; James Clancy and more

 
US Launches Largest Air Assault Since Iraq Invasion
US and Iraqi troops have launched what the military is calling the largest air assault in the three years since the Iraq invasion. In a press release, the army said over fifteen hundred troops and fifty aircraft have been deployed in a "suspected insurgent operating area" northeast of Samarra. Operation "Swarmer" is expected to last for several days. No casualties have been reported so far.
 
Over 500 Events Planned For Events Marking Third Year of Iraq War
And as the invasion and occupation of Iraq reaches the three-year mark this Sunday, activists are staging anti-war events around the world. At least 500 protests are being held in the US this weekend alone. United for Peace and Justice has organized actions in all 50 states. Some began earlier this week. A veterans march for peace, which began in Alabama Tuesday, will end in New Orleans. According to USA Today, a new poll shows 60 percent of Americans believe the war was not "worth it." In London, the Stop the War Coalition will stage a protest Saturday to demand the withdrawal of US and British troops from Iraq. Similar demonstrations are to be held in cities in Iraq, as well as in Mexico, Japan, and other parts of Europe.
 
Student Demonstrations Grow to Over 260,000 in France
In France, students are continuing to turn out in massive numbers to protest a new employment law that will make it easier for companies to fire young workers. Police say the demonstrations have grown to nearly 260,000 people. Organizers put the numbers at over half a million. Scattered violence has been reported around the country. In Paris, police used teargas and water cannons against protesters at the end of a march outside the University of Paris-Sorbonne on the Left Bank. Several cars were set ablaze and store windows were smashed during the unrest. Police have made over 200 arrests. According to the Education Ministry, two-thirds of France's 84 Universities have been affected by strikes and sit-ins.
 
Poll: 46% of Americans Support Feingold's Censure Measure
In other news, a new poll shows a majority of Americans support Democratic Senator Russ Feingold's measure to censure President Bush for authorizing the no-warrant domestic surveillance program. According to the American Research Group, 46% of Americans favor the measure, while 44% oppose it. Feingold's widely-publicized effort stalled after it failed to attract the support of Senators from either political parties.
 
 
The above four items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Liang, Michah, Susan and CedricDemocracy Now! ("always informing you," as Marcia says):
 
 
 
Headlines for March 17, 2006

- US Launches Largest Air Assault Since Iraq Invasion
- US, Iran Signal Agreement to Discuss Iraq
- Student Demonstrations Grow to Over 260,000 in France
- Iraqi Kurds Storm Monument in Anti-Government Protest
- British Drug Test Leaves 2 in Critical Condition
- Audit Shows Millions Wasted on Post-Katrina Contracts
- U. of Miami Announces Wage Increase for Striking Workers
 
 
Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor on the Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq

Almost three years to the day the war started, a new book takes a look at the inside story of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. "Cobra II," by co-authors Michael Gordon, the chief military correspondent for The New York Times, and retired Marine general Bernard Trainor, the book is based on interviews with a wide range of officials as well as a classified report based on interrogations of more than 110 Iraqi officials and officers and 600 Iraqi documents. [includes rush transcript - partial]
 
New York Times Chief Military Correspondent Michael Gordon Defends Pre-War Reporting on WMDs

Michael Gordon, the chief military correspondent for The New York Times, discusses his reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the run-up to the invasion.
 
If you missed the broadcast, use the links.  You don't want to miss it.
 
Last night I noted:
 
(And I clearly loathe Gordon and Lt. General retired's New York Times reporting. I haven't read their book. If anyone can get a good interview out of the two it would be Amy Goodman. So make a point to check out Democracy Now! tomorrow as always.)
 
Listen, watch or read and you'll be singing, "I-I-I-I love to loathe you, bully."  Amy Goodman doesn't fluff for Gordon.  It's obvious that's something of a shock for him.  This is the man, insider gossip, that some say fancies himself the new Bill Keller.  (No, the old one isn't gone.  But most insiders cast Gordon as Iago.)  So for that reason, or to see a "we got it all wrong" liar forced to face that the questions aren't going to fade away, check out today's broadcast.
 
At the end of the broadcast, Gordon (in one of his many blathering moments) says to Amy Goodman, "You have a one track mind.  I thought we were going to talk about the Iraq war."   First, the question has to do with the war.  (Gordon just wanted to talk 'strategy' -- just like a war pornographers.)  But yes, she is focused on getting to the bottom of the facts and, if Gordon weren't so lazy, he might be able to appreciate it.  Instead, he wants to minimize his own part in the lead up to the invasion.  There's no accountablility at the Times and Gordon's performance recalled some of Judith Miller's most laughable defenses.  We'll probably note this again but I'm rushing (this is a dictated entry) so we'll leave it at that for now. 
 
 
First off, community note.  If you're trying to visit Cedric's Big Mix, you are out of luck.  That's not Cedric's fault.  He blogged yesterday (on Feingold). There's a comment that someone left to Tuesday's entry that Cedric was hoping to highlight (a way to show support for Feingold).  He couldn't read it yesterday.  People can't read his site today, instead you get this note: 
 

Blog under maintenance

This blog is temporarily not viewable.

 
I've told Cedric that if and when his site is readable, we will cross-post his entries here. 
 
We're focusing on activism for the highlights. First Vic notes, James Clancy's "Mr Haper goes to war" (NUPGE):
 
 
The truth is that Canadian forces are now involved in a war which was never debated or voted upon by the House of Commons. I absolutely concur with those who believe that before we further risk the lives of our men and women in uniform this entire endeavuor must be subjected to public scrutiny. Failure to do so debases our democracy. I also think it sells short the capacity of Canadians to make informed decisions on such matters.
March 18th marks the third anniversary of the commencement of the U.S.-led war on Iraq (see Canadian Peace Alliance
website for events marking the anniversary). When the war began, Canada decided not to take an active role. Canadians supported that decision and their judgment has been vindicated.
[. . .]
The National Union was among the many organizations that spoke out in opposition to the war in Iraq. With protests being planned to commemorate the third anniversary of the war, I look back on what we said as a union at the outset and I believe our assessment remains as valid today as it was then. Not in our name - March 2003
We have no qualms about standing firmly behind the position we took then and doing so in open and public debate. The question to be asked now is: Will Prime Minister Harper allow that debate to take place?
A footnote concerning war resisters
I want to bring to your attention the situation of U.S. war resisters in Canada.
Two of these men, Jeremy Hinzman, 27, and Brandon Hughey, 20, have taken a deeply felt moral position against fighting in the Iraq war. These two young men, whose cases for asylum are before a Federal Court, faced a decision that many of us will never have to confront. They have, in my opinion, demonstrated exemplary courage in choosing to leave family and friends behind and come to Canada rather than fight.
Their biggest mistake, it seems, was being born into the American working class -- and wanting to pursue the American dream for themselves. The U.S. army offers one of the few avenues for many American youth to go to college. Promised an opportunity to improve their lot in life, they signed up. What they did not foresee was being made pawns in an illegal war.
In the past, Canada has provided a refuge for U.S. citizens who decide not to support their nation's military follies overseas. Another Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, took a clear stand in support of a generation of U.S. war resisters during the Vietnam era.
The statement Trudeau made at the time remains just as valid today: "Those who make the conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war ... have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism."
The National Union absolutely agrees and joins the demand for the federal government to take whatever steps are necessary to allow US war resisters to stay in Canada.
 
 
Clancy is the president of Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE).  Kyle notes "France Attracts More US 'Refuseniks'" (IslamOnline.net via The Journal of Turkish Weekly):
 
Anti-Iraq war France has become a favorite destination to US Iraq war "refuseniks," who resorted to the western European country to start a new lease of life.
Hart Viges was the last ex-US Marine who found peace of mind and heart in Paris, hoping that he might lay to rest painful memories and the nightmarish Iraq experience.
"The US military is committing war crimes in Iraq," Viges told an anti-Iraq war Paris gathering organized by French rights groups Movement for Peace, Action Against War and Anti-War Call Alliance.
The groups launch Thursday, March 16, a multi-leg French tour during which anti-war activists will hold seminars on the illegal US-led war on the Arab country.
Viges will lead Iraq war refuseniks in delivering their hands-on experiences in the war-torn country.
The tour is aimed at marking the third anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, which falls on March 21.
The trio has appealed to the European and French parliaments to support and provide for US soldiers refusing to serve in Iraq or those fired for defying overseas orders.
[. . .]
In his testimony, Viges said that the US army adopted a shoot-to-kill policy in Iraq.
The traumatized ex-Marine said that shooting civilians has become the rule in occupied Iraq.
He said was ordered by officers higher up the chain of command to shoot at any taxi in Baghdad as a potential target.
He said some soldiers did not buy it and mocked the commander's justification as "April Fool's Day."
Viges said similar incidents have convinced him of the absurdity of the US war on Iraq.
Jimmy Massey, a former US Marine, took the lid off the US rights violations in Iraq in his book "Kill! Kill! Kill!", issued in the French capital, Paris.
In his book, Massey writes that at one point he told an officer that the US military campaign "resembles a genocide" and that "our only objective in Iraq is petrol and profits."
"I ask the Iraqis and Muslims to forgive US practices in Iraq, especially during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan," Massey told IslamOnline.net in an exclusive interview last October.
In December of last year, Massey along with his paratrooper Jeremy Hinzman applied for political asylum in Canada in protest at the "atrocities" committed by the US army in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In graphic testimonies to a Canadian tribunal, the former Marine Sergeant and Hinzman have argued that they could not tolerate killing innocent civilians in Iraq.
 
 
From Canada and France, we turn to the United States for Cindy's highlight of the ongoing march.  From Samantha Gonzaga's "Peace March treads through Long Beach" (Long Beach Press-Telegram):
 
 
A peace march that began in Tijuana, Mexico, last Sunday wound its way through Long Beach streets on Thursday in protest to the war in Iraq.
The walk, modeled and coinciding with the 76th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi's "Salt March" in British India, will conclude in San Francisco's Mission District on March 26. In addition to voicing opposition to the war, the march also sought to call attention to the war's impact on the Latino community, where it's not uncommon for youth to use the military as a way to improve their quality of life, said Pablo Paredes.
"We're so targeted, and I really don't want to make this a race issue, but while other minorities' rates of enlistments have gone down, ours have not," Paredes said. The 24-year-old former Navy weapons control technician has been vocal about his opposition since being court-marshaled in March 2005 for refusing to board a ship bound for Iraq.
He was among those who marched the north-south axis of the city to cross Compton and Maywood, and spoke at the rallies in Houghton Park in North Long Beach and PUMA (Padres Unidos de Maywood) Community Center in Maywood. Protesters were joined and assisted by local groups such as Centro Cha, the Orange County-Long Beach chapter of Military Families Speak Out and the League of Latin American Citizens.
 
Want more?  We have it thanks to Maria's highlight.  From Armando Ramirez's "Cheers, whistles greet Latino march for peace" (People's Weekly World):
 
The "Peregrinacion por la Paz" (March for Peace) began March 12 at Centro Cultural de Tijuana, just south of the California border. From here, this long trek will go all the way to San Francisco. In the lead are peace activist Fernando Suarez del Solar and war resisters Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Aidan Delgado.
As we approached the U.S. border, Border Patrol guards came out to meet us. They had seen our signs and banners and were concerned that we would create an incident. Fernando assured them that our intentions were peaceful. They gave us a special escort that speeded us through the checkpoints.
After crossing the border, we were joined by other war protesters. All together we numbered about 40. Others would join us along the way.

Picking up on news we noted last night, Malcolm Kendall-Smith, Olive notes Ian McPhedran's "RAF doctor's Iraq stand" (The Advertiser of Australia):
 
AN Australian-born Royal Air Force doctor is facing a court martial for disobeying orders after he refused to return to Iraq because he regards the war as illegal.
Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, who was born in Australia and raised in New Zealand, faced a pre-trial hearing at the Aldershot military base in England on Wednesday.
His lawyer Philip Sapsford, QC, told the hearing yesterday that Flt-Lt Kendall-Smith, who has already served two tours in Iraq, believed that because Iraq had not attacked the UK or her allies, there was no lawful reason to invade.
He stands accused of failing to comply with five lawful orders regarding his pre-deployment training for his third tour to Iraq.
The 37-year-old made his decision after reading all the published material relating to the legal advice given to the Blair Government before the March, 2003 invasion.
 
 
 
Six months after Hurricane Katrina ripped through the Gulf Coast, taking many lives and forever changing many more, NOW is proud to be part of the Gulf Coast Renewal Campaign, joining with our congressional allies, the Hip Hop Caucus, Rainbow/PUSH and others in demanding that the federal government end the deadlock and start providing answers and assistance to the survivors.
First, we want housing for every evacuee. For thousands of Katrina survivors in temporary housing, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made their lives a roller-coaster of eviction threats followed by last-minute extensions. Now there is another eviction threat, and those from the Gulf Coast who are here with us today could be homeless when they return. And FEMA's message to them? "You're on your own." And our message to FEMA? They're not alone -- we're here to fight beside them.
Second, we want fair elections in New Orleans, and real voting rights for New Orleanians. In less than six weeks, general elections are scheduled that will help decide the fate of their city. Yet more than 300,000 Katrina survivors may be deprived of their right to vote unless there is immediate action.
Third, we want a plan, and the funding to carry it out. A rebuilding plan must focus on survivors, not developers; and must include temporary and long-term housing assistance; jobs and education; family reunification; funding for quality public education; health care (especially mental health care and reproductive health care); recognition that Katrina assistance is not welfare; and preference for local businesses and labor in rebuilding contracts.
Finally, the Gulf Coast Renewal Campaign supports the passage of HR 4197: the Hurricane Katrina Recovery, Reclamation, Restoration, Reconstruction and Reunion Act of 2005. This bill would provide housing vouchers, community development block grants, counseling and absentee ballots for survivors. Local businesses would receive incentives to return to the Gulf Coast and rebuild. This bill is imperative for progress in the area, but it has been stalled in Congress.
The survivors cannot wait any longer, and they shouldn't have to.
 
Also on New Orleans, Carl notes Bruce Dixon's "Walkin' to New Orleans: Uphold the Right to Return, Rebuild and Remain Progressive Forces in Motion" (Bruce's Beat, The Black Commentator):
 
This week, another of the grassroots relief and advocacy efforts stepped off on a 70 mile march from Mobile, Alabama through Pascagoula, Mississippi to New Orleans.  Along with the contingent of students who lend their youthful energies to every such worthwhile undertaking, the Veterans Gulf March significantly includes representatives of active duty military families and vets of both Gulf Wars.  Paul Robinson was a principal actor in the grassroots Katrina relief efforts BC highlighted back in September 15, 2005.  The recent founder of Mobile's all-black chapter of Veterans For Peace, he is a leading participant in this effort, along with author, activist and former US Army Special Forces Sgt. Stan Goff
[. . .]
The march will reach New Orleans this weekend.  Along the way, and at their destination vets, survivors and volunteers will participate in the building of homes and community centers.  There's a lot of building to be done.  We encourage BC readers to keep up with the progress of the Vets Gulf March through this weekend via the regular bulletins on their web site, and to donate to defray its costs.
 
 
 
 
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
 
 


Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.