NPR'S ANNE GARRELS - SLOPPY REPORTING

I want to draw your attention to an important post on the blog NPR Check about NPR's All Things Considered this past Sunday May 6, 2007. NPR Check quotes Anne Garrels in Baghdad talking about the U.S. military seizing arms caches:

"Garrels: "The US military says expanded operations have generated better intelligence, leading to the seizure last month of 731 weapons caches, more than double the number found in January. Despite this Major General Rick Lynch told reporters both Sunni and Shiite extremists are increasingly using sophisticated roadside explosives with technology from Iran that can pierce armored vehicles. He said he expected the rate of American casualties to increase over the next ninety days, with the so-called surge only having a decisive effect by September.""

NPR Check correctly points out that Anne Garrels offers: "Not one scrap of evidence. Not one bit of skepticism."

This is the trouble with many media reports from Iraq. Reporters wily-nily take the talking points of the U.S. military and then offer them to their U.S. audience without any scepticism or questioning cynicism. I am sure it is easier for Anne Garrels to write her dispatch this way. But look at the damage it does. It demonizes Iran without any acceptable evidence. No wonder that many Americans accept the administration's line that Iran is the "enemy of the United States." This is all a prelude to Bush & Co. justifying a war against Iran. And it is done because of the laziness and sloppiness of reporters.

WHAT NED LAMONT AND SEGOLENE ROYAL HAVE IN COMMON

The recent elections in France for president unfortunately remind me of the U.S. senate race in Connecticut last November. Both Segolene Royal and Ned Lamont ran crummy campaigns. Segolene - because she could not bring herself to confront the bully Sarko (Nicolas Sarkozy). He walked all over her in the debate this past Wednesday. Among other insults, he said Sego did not have the temperament to be president of La France. Amazingly she did not object to this out-and-out sexism and bullying condescension.

Which reminds me of the poor substandard campaign run by Ned Lamont in his bid to unseat holy Joe Lieberman. While Ned made the war in Iraq his main focus during the Democratic primaries, Ned could not bring himself to keep this damn obscene war ISSUE # 1 during the general elections. Ned thought he had to include other issues. Big Mistake. The war faded for Ned in the general elections. And the voting public lost interest.

The result is for all to see. Both Sego and Ned lost big time.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN PAKISTAN OVER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

I wrote on May 5, 2007, of General Pevez Musharraf's seeming belittlement of the Pakistani Constitution, as indicated in his 2006 autobiography, In the Line of Fire. Yesterday, Al Jazeera quotes Iftikhar Chaudry, the Supreme Court Chief against whom Musharraf has brought charges, describing Musharraf's actions as being in opposition to the Constitution:

"But Chaudhry's message was clear. He said: "Nations and states which are based on dictatorship instead of the supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law and protection of basic rights get destroyed.""

Al Jazeera reports that when Chaudhry arrived in Lahore for his hearing on the charges, thousands of Pakistanis met him on the streets, many of whom were lawyers.

"Pakistanis waited through the night to offer a rousing welcome to the judge who defied the country's president as he arrived in Lahore on Sunday.

"Iftikhar Chaudhry, the chief justice, later spoke in the compound of the Lahore High Court to thousands of lawyers, 17 of Punjab province's 23 judges, and opposition activists outside on the street."


(Photo from Reuters. Chaudhry received a hero's welcome when he arrived in Lahore to address lawyers on Sunday.)

IRAN BARS AL-JAZEERA CORRESPONDENTS FROM IRANIAN PARLIAMENT

Here's something else those criminals Bush/Cheney/Rice might try to use to justify war against Iran. Al-Jazeera reports today that the government of Iran has banned Al-Jazeera correspondents from its legislature because it says one of Al-Jazeera's programs insulted the Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq.


"Iran has banned Al-Jazeera from its parliament, saying one of its talkshows had insulted the most revered Shia cleric in Iraq.

"Gholam Ali Hadad Adel, the parliament's speaker, said: "Parliament has decided to prevent Al Jazeera journalists from entering until this network makes a formal apology for insulting [Grand] Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani."

"Iran said questions from the host of the "Without Borders" programme had questioned the legitimacy of Sistani's leadership in Iraq.

"Hadad Adel said: "This is a plot of the enemies of Islam and Iraq and news networks like Al Jazeera committed this insult because of their influential role.""

SEN. DURBIN SAYS HE KNEW NUCLEAR REASONS FOR IRAQ WAR WERE BOGUS

I heard On The Media today with Bob Garfield interviewing Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois). Sen. Durbin was on the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 and he contrasted the difference in intelligence information detailed by analysts to senators behind closed doors with what Bush/Cheney/Rice were telling the public in the lead-up to the War. For example, those infamous aluminum tubes that Bush & Co. held up as proof positive that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were developing nuclear weapons. Apparently the Senate Intelligence Committee knew that the tubes were for anything but nuclear fuel production.

Bob Garfield asked Sen. Durbin THE KEY QUESTION: how come you Senator Dubin did not go public and disclose that the administration was lying and fudging on Saddam's purported nuclear build-up? Durbin answered he was bound by rules of secrecy of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But this is not, and cannot be, a sufficient answer. The War in Iraq has cost over 3,000 lives of U.S. troops and over 650,000 lives of Iraqis. A pledge of secrecy in this case is trumped by Durbin's fundamental duty to go out and tell the truth. Had Durbin done this, it might have stopped the damned war. And not only was it a duty of Durbin. This was a duty of every member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, both Democratic and Republican alike.

FREE SUDANESE JOURNALIST IN GUANTANAMO

I received a mailing from Amnesty International a few days ago, and inside was an information sheet on Sami al-Haii, a Sudanese cameraman for Al-Jazeera. While on assignment in 2001 for Al-Jazeera, Al-Haii was arrested by the Pakistani police in December 2001 and turned over to the U.S. at Bagram air base.

"Sami al-Haii has described the 16 days . . . in Bagram . . . as 'the worst in my life.' He states that he was severely physically tortured and had dogs set upon him, that he was held in a cage inside a freezing aircraft hangar and was given insufficient, often frozen, food. He was then transferred to Kandahar, where his abuse continued. Sami al-Haii alleges that while there he was beaten regularly, as well as subjected to sexual abuse by U.S. soldiers, and forced into stress position.

"Sami al-Haii was transferred to Guantanamo Bay on June 13, 2002, where he remains. He has been constantly interrogated about any possible links between his employers and Islamist extremists."

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld call the prisoners at Guantanamo the "worst of the worst." Do they mean Sami-al-Haii? His case shows why Guantanamo must be closed and why each internee there must be given a hearing on the merits in Federal court according to the rule of law.

DISAPPOINTMENT OVER MUSHARRAF'S ABUSE OF RULE OF LAW

When I read Pervez Musharraf's 2006 autobiography, In the Line of Fire, I was perplexed by the following on pp. 152-153:

"If the nation goes, so does the constitution. But if the constitution especially a flawed one, goes, the nation still remains and can always give itself another constitution or correct the flaws in the first one. Thus our ultimate duty is to preserve the nation. The choice may be stark, but it is obvious: Pakistan comes first - always."

Pakistan's president says the nation comes before its constitution. Do away with the constitution if it means saving the nation.

Is this why General Musharraf feels unconstrained in attacking the Pakistani Chief Justice? Today the BBC reports that the Pakistani government has detained "hundreds" who had turned out to support the ex-Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

"Hundreds of people have been arrested in Pakistan to prevent them attending a rally in support of the ousted chief justice, activists say."

When I read Musharraf's book, notwithstanding the passage quote above, I came away with a overall sense that he was an honest, intellectually and morally capable leader. I read with interest his exploits in the Army and his brushes with death, such as being in an airplane crash and the target of several assassination attempts. I also was struck with his commitment to a democratic Pakistan.

However, I am truly disappointed about Musharraf's lack of respect for the Pakistani courts and judges. This respect forms the basis for a rule of law, where an independent judiciary is free and unfettered to protect minority rights. Musharraf has sacked the Chief Justice and brought charges against him. Pakistan's lawyers have protested and as a consequence suffered arrests and beatings. (See my previous post on March 21, 2007.)

SUCKING UP TO BUSINESS LEADERS ON NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT

I watched Nightly Business Report tonight and was struck with the deference shown to a business leader by one of NBR's reporters. Jeff Yastine, NBR correspondent, was interviewing Mastercard's CEO Robert Selander. At the end, this was the exchange:

YASTINE: Mr. Selander thanks for your time.
SELANDER: It was nice meeting you Jeff.

Why should Yastine be so deferential to Selander as to call him "Mr. Selander," but Selander treats Yastine as if one of the employees by calling him "Jeff?" I don't approve of this deference to class and position. Let's face it. Yastine appears obsequious to Selander, and the only apparent reason - Selander's high position at Mastercard.

FIVE MORE U.S. SOLDIERS DIE IN IRAQ

Bill Brubaker reports today in the WashingtonPost.com that five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq from explosions, four of them from IEDs.

This madness and blood-letting must stop. The United States should not have troops in Iraq. The U.S. had no moral or ethical justification in invading and waging war against Iraq.

Furthermore, Bush cavalierly sends U.S. forces into a country where no one understands the social, cultural or linguistic composition. Bush's Iraq War is a chaotic and moral mess. BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW.

GEORGE BUSH'S NON-EXISTENT FOREIGN POLICY

I thought George Bush and Condi Rice were against sitting down and talking to the Syrians and Iranians. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took a lot of criticism by Bush for her visit in early April to Syria and her talks with Syrian leaders. See the New York Times story by Hassan M. Fattah and Hugh Naylor on April 4, 2007.

Yet yesterday in Sharm El Sheik, Egypt, we see Condi Rice doing just that, sitting down with the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and having talks. Helene Cooper and Jon Elsen report in today's The New York Times on the meeting:

"Ms. Rice’s talk here on Thursday with Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, lasted only 30 minutes but was substantive. She asked that Syria, with its porous border with Iraq, do more to restrict the flow of foreign fighters."

Where is George Bush's expression of displeasure? If he criticises Democrat Nancy Pelosi because he says meetings with the Syrians and Iranians are unproductive, let's hear him say the same things about his Secretary of State Condi Rice.

I am sure George Bush does not have a clue about diplomacy and a sane policy of foreign relations. That's what makes this president so dangerous.