Profile of Retiring Congressman

Representative Terry Everett (R-AL) has represented Alabama's 2nd congressional district since first being elected to Congress in 1992. Now the 70 year old congressman is retiring, citing lingering health problems. Today I filed a profile on Congressman Everett for Alabama Public Radio, which you can read or listen to by going here.

So what did Everett learn about Congress in his eight terms?

“That the place doesn’t run like it says it does in the school books.”

That's for sure...

Iran Features

Earlier today the Senate voted 76-22 to approve the controversial Lieberman-Kyl sense of the Senate resolution, which calls for Iran's Revolutionary Guard to be listed as a "terrorist organization." I filed a story on the bill for WSHU in Fairfield, Connecticut, which you can read and/or listen to here. The story deals with recent talk that the Bush administration may attack Iran before leaving office, and features interviews with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT), Juan Cole (author of the popular blog on Mideast issues), and Steve Simon (a former senior member of the National Security Council).

I also filed a story for WCPN in Cleveland, Ohio, in response to the House voting to increase sanctions against Iran, which is available here. This story features Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Representative Steve LaTourette (R-OH), and both Cole and Simon.

CENTCOM Head: No war with Iran

This is interesting. While some in Washington feel the United States should adopt a more aggressive stance toward Iran, and while prominent neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz argue the U.S. should actually bomb Iran, it seems that view isn't shared by top military leaders -- namely, the military's top official in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon:

"This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful," Adm. William Fallon said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday.
------
"I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for," said Fallon during the Friday interview at Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar. "We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all .... It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions."

Fallon's more diplomatic tone seems consistent with reports over the years that the military leadership opposes a military confrontation with Iran. In fact, earlier this year General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there was "zero" chance that there would be a war with Iran. The statement is also consistent with earlier reports that Fallon opposes military action. As Inter Press Service's (IPS) Gareth Porter reported back in May:

"Admiral William Fallon, then [February '07] President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM."

Fallon's presence at CENTCOM could be a sign that rumors of a war with Iran may just be an attempt to compel countries like Russian and China to go along with another round of economic sanctions against Iran. It could also signal that Vice President Cheney's influence is on the decline, and that President Bush may instead be listening to Admiral Fallon and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Digg this.

Can President Bush Attack Iran?

In April 2006 I interviewed Scott Ritter, the former chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, in a piece for Alternet.org. At the time I asked him about whether he felt the Bush administration would attack Iran, and if they did, whether they would consult Congress, which at the time was in Republican hands. In light of recent rumors that the Bush administration may decide to attack Iran before leaving office, I decided to take another look at the interview and found a section I find particularly relevant today:

Davis: Even if we had a Democratic majority, a lot has been talked about how Bush believes in the "unitary executive theory," where he can basically go on and just authorize [military action] himself. Do you think he will even consult Congress if we start a bombing campaign on Iran?

Ritter: No, unless the Democrats are able to take over the House and compel him to do this, then no, Bush has no intention. [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice has already let the cat out of the bag where she said she will say nothing that ties the hands of the chief executive, commander-in-chief to do that which he feels is necessary for the security of the United States of America.

Davis: All options are on the table.

Ritter: Yeah, except consulting Congress.

Since I spoke to Ritter, Democrats have taken over both houses of Congress. But they haven't done anything to challenge the Bush administration's authority to preemptively attack Iran. Earlier this year Democrats did include a measure in an Iraq war funding bill that would have required the administration to seek Congress' approval for an attack. But that language was removed after intense lobbying from the pro-Israel group AIPAC. And despite promises that the issue would be voted on separately in a standalone bill, more that six months later, that hasn't happened. Now some may think that's not important. After all, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states in no uncertain terms that Congress reserves the sole power to declare war. But that neglects the fact that the United States hasn't declared war since World War II. All military action taken since then, from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq, has been considered to be a "police action," or has taken place under the auspices of the United Nations. So the idea that President Bush could attack Iran without Congress declaring war, or even consenting in some other manner, isn't just fear mongering coming from the outer limits of the blogosphere. In fact, as I learned this week, it's apparently a view shared by the Democratic leadership in Congress. Representative John Larson (D-CT) is the 4th highest ranking Democrat in the House. Earlier this week I asked him how Congress would respond if President Bush decided to take military action. His response was revealing. He and other Democrats apparently share the view that the President could take Iran based on the authorizations to use military force passed after 9/11 and in October 2002 prior to the Iraq war.

Under the bill that was passed, and this is the problem for a lot of members of Congress that voted for the proposal -- I did not, I opposed this war, and I opposed it primarily on the basis that it gave him unilateral and preemptive capability. So, the question is, if this transpired what would the Congress do? Well, A, the president under the current law could do this, unless that law is repealed.

To followup, I asked Larson, why, if the President has the power to attack Iran under current law, Congress has yet to vote on a bill requiring him to seek their approval prior to taking military action. According to Larson, Congress has been too busy with other issues. He also revealed that the promise to hold a standalone vote on a bill requiring the administration to consult Congress is apparently dead. He did say that the Democratic leadership would try to attach it as an amendment to an array of defense-related bills, but his statement confirms that earlier promises by Speaker Pelosi to vote on the issue separately won't be kept. Larson did say that he supports repealing the original authorizations to use force:

I say repeal the authorization, just like Congress did during Vietnam. They repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. They repealed the resolution that got us there in the first place. That takes away the president’s power with respect to unilaterally invading other countries -- preemptively striking other countries, not just Iran.

However, Larson offered no timeline as to when, or if, Congress would ever vote on the proposal. And considering the number of leading Democrats who have supported sanctions and other war-like policies towards Iran, the whole issue of the President seeking Congress' approval might be a moot point. As several Mideast experts I interviewed about the issue told me, Democrats can be just as hawkish as Republicans when it comes to Iran, and as the several bipartisan measures condemning Iran for "inciting genocide" and "meddling" in Iraq show, many of them would likely support military action if it were to take place.

The Democrats' general unwillingness to challenge President Bush's authority to attack Iran is one of the reasons antiwar Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) cited for Congress' dismal 11% approval rating:

The Democrats now that they’re in charge are doing a lot of grandstanding. They could’ve done a lot more [to end the war]. We had a provision that would have prohibited the president from bombing Iran without congressional approval, and that was deliberately removed from the [Iraq war supplemental funding] bill. So even though the Constitution should prohibit him from doing that, the Democrats didn’t want to put any restraints on the president at all, and I think the people see through this.

Digg this.

Why Does Everyone Hate Congress?

A recent Zogby/Reuters poll finds that public opinion of Congress is at an all-time low. In fact, Congress' approval rating of 11% is so low that it almost makes President Bush look popular. So why does everyone hate Congress? That's the question I posed to several members of the Texas congressional delegation in a story for KUT in Austin, TX. Lawmakers I interviewed include Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), and Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX).

To listen and/or read the story, go here.

13 Lawmakers Subpoenaed in Defense Contractor Bribery Case

The Associated Press reported earlier today that 13 congressmen have been subpoenaed to testify by the defense attorneys for Brent Wilkes, the California contractor charged with bribing disgraced former Congressman Duke Cunningham (R-CA) for millions of dollars in defense contracts. But those lawmakers who were subpoenaed say the reason is a mystery to them, and all are refusing to testify until Mr. Wilkes' defense gives them a specific reason as to why they their testimony is needed.

As I reported for KPBS in San Diego, California, several of the lawmakers, including Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA), took campaign contributions from Wilkes, though there is no evidence that they did anything improper. That said, Rep. Issa was defensive when I asked him why he wasn't going to honor his subpoena:

"I didn't work with Mr. Wilkes, I didn't have any kind of contact with him at all. I met him before I was a congressman. I went to a foundation event while I was a congressman in which I contributed to a warrior foundation. So I don't have the kind of link that would ever be appropriate, as far as I know."

To read and/or listen to the story, click here.

To Fund or Not to Fund

Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) is about as close as you can get to a careful, middle-of-the-road, centrist lawmaker -- he's not a liberal antiwar firebrand, by any means. That's why his newfound openness to cutting funding for the war in Iraq could be pivotal. Before now, Salazar has consistently opposed any efforts to cut the war's funding. Like most other Democrats, he seemed to accept the Republican framing of the war funding issue -- that any vote against funding for the war was a vote against the troops themselves. This sentiment was perhaps best expressed by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) when Congress voted to continue funding the war in Iraq earlier this year:

"As long as we have troops on the front lines, it is our shared responsibility to give them the equipment and protection they need."

But the fact that a moderate senator like Salazar is even considering cutting funding for the war could signal that Democrats may attempt to reframe the issue, something they haven't typically been very good at. If that's the case, then they may want to follow Salazar's lead and portray their stance as pro-military. As the Senator said to me earlier today, he only came to his position on funding after visiting Iraq. There he says actual soldiers in the field recommended that he consider cutting funding as a way of ending the war. He said their position was clear: "They want to come home."

But like any politician, Salazar has left himself ample room to change his position when it comes time to actually vote. He says he still wants to find some sort of bipartisan consensus on ending the war. Only if that fails, he told me, would he then consider other options, such as cutting funding:

"It’s trying to find a new way forward, and it may be that what we fund are the limited missions. But the concept is still very much under discussion."

As Democrats realized when dealing with the Iraq supplemental funding bill, it requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass almost any bill related to Iraq -- and 67 to overturn a presidential veto. But to end the war, Democrats don't actually need to pass anything. Rather, they simply need 41 senators to publicly commit to not vote for any funding bill that doesn't contain a firm timeline for withdrawal. That would force President Bush to accept a withdrawal or face the prospect of having no money with which to continue the war -- either way, Democrats succeed in ending the current mission in Iraq. While we're not a that point yet, the openness of those like Senator Salazar to cutting funding may be a sign that more and more moderate lawmakers may be willing to take more radical steps to end the war.

The Real Iraq

Aljazeera English has an interesting report on Iraq which includes some figures not included in General Petreaus' recent report to Congress.

Number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion: +750,000
Number who have fled Iraq since March '03: 2.6 million
Number forced to flee their homes every month: +50,000
Number of homeless within Iraq: 2.2 million
Number kidnapped in Baghdad every day: 40
Hours of electricity per day: 2 to 6

The report also takes a look at the American strategy of backing Sunni groups in the city of Abu Ghraib as a counterbalance to the American-backed Shiite central government. Unsurprisingly, the report finds that this strategy of pitting one sectarian group against another could severely backfire in the wake of an American withdrawal. Check it out below:

(via Juan Cole)

Toy Safety Hearing

Earlier today the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing regarding the recall of millions of Chinese-made toys that contain dangerous levels of lead. The hearing included testimony from toy company CEOs and consumer advocates, with much of the blame for the recalls placed on China. I covered the story for Capitol News Connection, and you can read and/or listen to the piece by going here.

Petraeus Report

In testimony earlier today before Congress, General Petraeus -- in what should come as a surprise to no one -- claimed that the so-called "surge" in Iraq is working. I've discussed the multitude of reasons as to why that is not the case in earlier postings, but for now lets consider what the Iraqis themselves have to say about the "surge" and whether, as Petraeus claims, it is "working."

According to a new ABC/BBC opinion poll, the answer is a resounding no: more than 70% of Iraqis say security has actually deteriorated in areas covered by the military "surge." Below is a graphic from the BBC detailing the results of the poll:

But don't expect this to get in the way of war supporters' claims that the surge is "working" (however they define that term this month), and don't expect the poll results to impact much of the public debate either. After all, last September the State Department found in their own poll of Iraqis that 65% supported an immediate withdrawal of American forces and 75% said they would feel safer if foreign troops left.

A few months ago I recall asking Michigan Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, about similar poll results finding that most Iraqis wanted American forces to leave their country. His response -- amidst claiming that the "surge" was working and that the overall environment in Iraq was improving -- was that there is no way to accurately poll Iraqis because of all the ongoing violence, sectarian and otherwise. Naturally this level of skepticism did not present itself last June when, alongside now former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum, Hoekstra claimed that the US had found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. His claim was immediately dismissed by the Pentagon.

Of course the practical effect of Hoekstra's and other lawmakers' stance on polling is that the Iraqi people will never have a voice in the future of their own country as it pertains to an American military presence, because all poll results will be immediately dismissed as illegitimate. "The Iraqi people," at least as a rhetorical device, can then be made to support any American action painted by its supporters as an attempt to further "progress" in Iraq. The only acknowledged "Iraqi voice" is that of the US-backed, "sovereign" Iraqi government, whose members -- knowing they would likely not be in power otherwise -- are unlikely to demand a withdrawal of American troops anytime soon.

One might argue that there is an undeniably reliable measure of whether the situation in Iraq is getting worse or getting better: whether Iraq's more than four million refugees are returning to their homes or not. But as CBS News reports, Iraq's refugee crisis is only getting worse -- forcing the Syrian government, which has taken in more that 1.5 million refugees, to begin issuing visas to just Iraqi professionals, thus blocking one of the few options left to many displaced Iraqis.

Story on Utah mine disaster

Yesterday, the head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, Richard Stickler, testified before a Senate panel regarding his actions following the Crandall Canyon mine collapse in Utah that trapped six miners and killed three rescue workers. While he faced tough questioning from most of the committee, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch had only praise for his response to the disaster.

Mine owner Robert Murray didn't show up, first citing a scheduling conflict and then claiming that he was "too sick." The Committee is expected to issue him a subpoena to force him to testify.

To listen to the story, which aired on KUER in Salt Lake City, Utah, click here.

Cooking the books -- Pentagon style

According to recent press accounts, General Petreaus is expected to claim a rather dramatic fall in violence in Iraq -- supposedly a drop of 17% since last December. Of course once you look closer, the story's just a little, shall we say... different. In their own investigation, the Associated Press found that rather than dropping, civilian deaths have actually increased for the second straight month. By their count, 1,809 civilians died in the month of August alone -- and this doesn't include anyone deemed an "insurgent" by the US military (and as this AFP story about a recent US air strike recounts, there is an awful lot of debate over the designation). And the organization Iraq Body Count, which only includes deaths reported on in the media, has found that civilian deaths are remaining fairly steady. They report a total of at least 71,000 deaths since the war began, though the only peer-reviewed study on Iraqi deaths, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, put the number at around 655,000 -- and that was from last October. So how is the Pentagon claiming "success"? Apparently by simply narrowing their definition of "sectarian violence" and excluding everything else. All that Shiite-on-Shiite violence occurring as part of a power struggle in southern Iraq? Doesn't matter. The same goes for Sunni-on-Sunni violence. Nor is simple criminal violence perpetrated by armed gangs included in their count. It's really kind of easy to claim reduced civilian deaths when you don't actually count civilian deaths.

The Washington Post has a good article on this whole issue in today's paper that includes the following quote, highlighting the absurdity of the whole situation:

Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

Read the rest here.

The latest surge in spin

Supporters of the war in Iraq are pointing to reduced American casualties in Iraq over the past three months as evidence that the Bush administration’s so-called “surge” is working. But as others have noted, U.S. casualties fall every summer during Iraq’s warmest months, because, as Middle East expert Juan Cole writes, “it is hot as hell.” And former CIA analyst Larry Johnson points out on his blog "No Quarter," (with an accompanying visual aid) that even with the recent drop, American casualties are still well above the numbers from previous years:

“For the first eight months of 2007 there have been 735 American troops killed and 4430 wounded. This is significantly higher than the casualty rate in 2005 or 2006. We have 1000 more dead and wounded this year than last year for the period January-August.”

In addition, according to the website icasualties.org, which tracks the number of Coalition casualties in Iraq, 261 Americans died in Iraq over the past three months. Comparatively, 169 Americans died over the same period last year. That means the supposed "reduction" in American casualties currently being heralded by war supporters actually represents an increase in American deaths in Iraq by more than 50%.

McClatchy news service also notes in their report on the figures that many analysts don’t see the recent slight reduction in American casualties as having any affect on the overall security situation in Iraq, which needless to say, remains dire :

'Others, however, noted that as U.S. combat deaths have dropped, deaths among Iraqi civilians have remained constant, and the “ethnic cleansing” of Baghdad’s neighborhoods has continued almost unabated.'

Despite the dishonesty in claiming that American casualties are down in Iraq when they are actually higher than in the past, expect this to be the one of the key pro-war talking points come General Petreaus’ report to Congress later this month. Of course one might ask, if the number of casualties is still higher than last year, how is this evidence that the “surge” is "working," much less doing anything to alter the overall security situation in Iraq? How has it improved the lives of the Iraqi people? And if one believes it has improved their situation, then why are more and more Iraqis fleeing their homes every day?

The latest spin on "the surge" vs. reality

First, lets begin with General Petraeus. From Associated Press:

SYDNEY, Australia - America's troop buildup in Iraq has sharply reduced sectarian killings and roadside bombings and lowered al-Qaida's influence, the top U.S. general in the country said in an interview published Friday.

"We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress and we believe al-Qaida is off balance at the very least," The Australian newspaper quoted Gen. David Petraeus as saying.

Petraeus said there had been a 75 percent drop in ethnic and religious killings since last year, a doubling in the number of seizures of insurgent weapons caches between January and August, a drop in the number of coalition deaths from roadside bombs, and an increase in the killing and capture of al-Qaida fighters, the newspaper said.

Now for the actual figures. From Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Civilian deaths from violence in Iraq rose in August, with 1,773 people killed, government data showed on Saturday, just days before the U.S. Congress gets a slew of reports on President George W. Bush's war strategy.

The civilian death toll was up 7 percent from 1,653 people killed in July, according to figures from various ministries.

Meanwhile, the LA Times reports on a cholera outbreak in northern Iraq caused by poor living conditions and lack of access to clean, drinkable water:

SULAYMANIYA, IRAQ -- A cholera outbreak in northern Iraq, where thousands of people have sought refuge from sectarian violence, is overwhelming hospitals and has killed as many as 10 people, health officials said Friday.

The outbreak in Sulaymaniya and Kirkuk is seen as the latest example of the displacement and deterioration of living conditions caused by the Iraqi conflict.

Yet how is the elite mainstream media reporting on the "surge?" Here's CBS's National Security Correspondent David Martin:

The Pentagon believes it has broken the cycle of violence in Iraq, and there are a lot of statistics to support that -- decrease in American casualties, in roadside bombs, in car bombs, in sectarian killings; increase in numbers of al Qaida killed or captured, weapons caches discovered, tips from the local population. The only negative trend cited by military officers is a continuing increase in the number of sophistcated roadside bombs smuggled in from Iran and the number of mortar and rocket attacks using Iranian weapons and training.

The surge is working. Now what do we do? Militarily, it's a no-brainer -- U.S. troops have seized the momentum and they should continue to exploit it. That means continuing the surge until next April when the first of the five brigades sent in as part of the surge will have completed their 15 month tour. [Emphasis mine]

That's right -- no mention of increased civilian deaths, the internal displacement of perhaps a million Iraqi civilians with more than two million living in refugee camps in countries like Syria and Jordan. Instead, the senior correspondent at one of the nation's leading news outlets relies solely on Pentagon news releases to come to the determination that "the surge is working." Consider this yet another example of why inside-the-beltway pundits and reporters may be good at propagating the latest in Pentagon spin and "conventional wisdom" on Iraq, but they're out of their element when it comes to relaying the actual reality on the ground.

---

Be sure to check out Patrick Cockburn's latest report for a realistic view of life in Iraq and for more details on the collapse of the country's health services.

New GAO Report on Iraq

A new report from the Government Accountability Office seems to support what most objective observers of Iraq have long realized: the country as a whole has fallen apart and there is little reason to believe that the so-called "surge" can doing anything to turn it around. The GAO report itself finds that the Iraqi government has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated "benchmarks" -- after the White House claimed earlier this summer that eight had been met. Of course, as University of Michigan professor and Middle East expert Juan Cole points out at his blog, the debate over the these ambiguous benchmarks and the accompanying argument over whether the "surge" is "working" is rather absurd considering how little it has to do with actual conditions on the ground for the Iraqi people.

I personally find the controversy about Iraq in Washington to be bizarre. Are they really arguing about whether the situation is improving? I mean, you have the Night of the Living Dead over there. People lack potable water, cholera has broken out even in the good areas, a third of people are hungry, a doubling of the internally displaced to at least 1.1 million, and a million pilgrims dispersed just this week by militia infighting in a supposedly safe all-Shiite area. The government has all but collapsed, with even the formerly cooperative sections of the Sunni Arab political class withdrawing in a snit (much less more Sunni Arabs being brought in from the cold). The parliament hasn't actually passed any legislation to speak of and often cannot get a quorum. Corruption is endemic. The weapons we give the Iraqi army are often sold off to the insurgency. Some of our development aid goes to them, too.

The average number of Iraqis killed in 2007 per day exceeds those killed in 2006. Independent counts by news organizations do not agree with Pentagon estimates about drops in civilian deaths over-all. Nation-wide attacks in June reached a daily all-time high of 177.5. True, violence in Baghdad has been wrestled back down to the levels of summer, 2006 (hint: it wasn't paradise), but violence levels are up in the rest of the country. If you compare each month in 2006 with each month in 2007 with regard to US military deaths, the 2007 picture is dreadful.

Iraq as a country has ceased to exist. By any reasonable measurement it is a failed state. But turn on any Sunday talk show and the same discredited pundits and think-tank ideologues are there, obfuscating and distorting the painful reality on the ground for political reasons. If you're instead looking for a realistic view of conditions in Iraq look to people like Professor Cole, British journalist and reporter for the Independent (UK) Patrick Cockburn, and one of the few outlets to not buy into pre-war hysteria about Iraq WMD's, McClatchy news service -- not cable news. Not only will you save money on your utilities, but you might actually learn something.

Dick Cheney argues against invading Iraq

Oh, how time changes everything. In this 1994 interview with the American Enterprise Institute, Vice President Dick Cheney explains why he and President George H.W. Bush decided against overthrowing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq after the first Gulf War.

Cheney: "Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgement was, not very many, and I think we got it right."

(Via Jon Schwarz at A Tiny Revolution)

Ron Paul Interview

With the GOP Straw Poll currently taking place in Ames, Iowa, now seems a good time to shamelessly promote this June interview I conducted with Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul. We discuss everything from why he is running for president, to his relationship with antiwar Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich.

The interview was cited by Reason magazine's Brian Doherty in an article on Ron Paul's strong online presence and his potential appeal to Democrats.

Propaganda Then and Now

On August 6th, 1945, the United States dropped a nuclear bomb nicknamed "Little Boy” on the city of Hiroshima, instantly killing more than 70,000 people -- the overwhelming majority civilians. Three days later, the nuclear bomb “Fat Man” was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, killing at least another 70,000 civilians. The anniversary of the bombings serves not only as a reminder of the of the indiscriminate destruction wrought by nuclear weapons -- particularly relevant in light of recent political disputes -- but also of the complicity of some media outlets in spreading and perpetuating U.S war propaganda. As Amy and David Goodman discuss in this article from 2005, "The Hiroshima Cover-Up," the U.S. government desperately wanted to block any information regarding the devastating consequences of the nuclear attacks on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “More than 200,000 people died in the atomic bombings of the cities,” write the Goodmans, but because of an embargo placed on the media by General MacArthur, “no Western journalist witnessed the aftermath and told the story. Instead, the world's media obediently crowded onto the battleship USS Missouri off the coast of Japan to cover the Japanese surrender.”

Yet as the article notes, there were a few intrepid reporters willing to break the U.S. military’s blockade. One was William Burchett, whose account of the devastation was published in the September 5, 1945 issue of the London Daily Express: “In Hiroshima, 30 days after the first atomic bomb destroyed the city and shook the world, people are still dying, mysteriously and horribly - people who were uninjured in the cataclysm from an unknown something which I can only describe as the atomic plague." He continued: "Hiroshima does not look like a bombed city. It looks as if a monster steamroller has passed over it and squashed it out of existence. I write these facts as dispassionately as I can in the hope that they will act as a warning to the world."

Naturally, U.S. military authorities were displeased with his account, and attempted to smear Burchett as a purveyor of Japanese propaganda. To counter his article, the military turned to one of their own: William Laurence, lead science reporter for the New York Times -- and a paid employee of the U.S. War Department.

Here’s how the Goodmans describe the relationship: “For four months, while still reporting for the Times, Mr. Laurence had been writing press releases for the military explaining the atomic weapons program; he also wrote statements for President Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. He was rewarded by being given a seat on the plane that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, an experience that he described in the Times with religious awe.”
Just days after the damning account of “the atomic plague” was published in the London Daily Express, Laurence wrote a front-page story in the New York Times “debunking” the article. “The Japanese are still continuing their propaganda aimed at creating the impression that we won the war unfairly,” wrote Laurence, “and thus attempting to create sympathy for themselves and milder terms. ... Thus, at the beginning, the Japanese described 'symptoms' that did not ring true."
While Laurence’s atomic reporting for the Times won him a Pulitzer Prize, it since has become yet another black mark on “the paper of record.” From Walter Duranty -- another Pulitzer winner -- shilling for Stalin in the 1930s, to Judith Miller’s breathless, alarmist reporting on nonexistent Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction,” the Times is a case-study in what happens when journalists allow themselves to become uncritical conduits for government misinformation and propaganda.

State and local officials lobby against war

In this piece for Vermont Public Radio, I speak to Vermont state legislator Mike Fischer, the author of a resolution passed earlier this year by the Vermont state legislator calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He was in Washington as part of a "Cities for Peace" effort to present Congress and President Bush with more than 300 state and city resolutions expressing opposition to the war.

To listen to the story, click here.

Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

I recently filed a piece for KGOU in Norman, Oklahoma, regarding the disparity in sentencing between the crack and powder forms of cocaine. Under current federal law, possession of five grams of crack cocaine is punishable by a mandatory five year sentence. Yet it would take 100 times that amount in powder cocaine to receive the same sentence.

To listen to an MP3 of the story, click here.

From KGOU's website:

Let’s say you’re an African American, you live in Oklahoma, and you’re caught possessing five grams of crack cocaine. According to mandatory sentencing guidelines, you’d receive a ten year prison sentence, even if it was your first offense. On the other hand, if you’re white, affluent and you’re charged with possessing powder cocaine – which is chemically identical to crack, albeit more concentrated -- you’d need to have nearly six times as much to receive a similar sentence. The Oklahoma Sentencing Commission has called for the elimination of the disparity between the sentences, and Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have teamed up to reduce the disparity on the federal level. Charles Davis reports from Capitol Hill.

Guests include former State Senator and Sentencing Commission member Ged Wright, Ethan Nadelman of the sentencing reform group the Drug Policy Alliance, Senator Tom Coburn and State Senator and Sentencing Commission Chair Richard Lerblance.