Occupation

During the past few days the situation in Iraq has largely taken a back seat to the US Attorney firings in the news. While under-reported of late, the situation in the middle-east is as troublesome as ever. The House and Senate both passed emergency funding measures that include time-lines for withdrawing US combat forces from Iraq, which President Bush has pledged to veto. Iran and Britain are engaged in an increasingly tense standoff over the Iranian seizure and detention of 15 British Sailors and Marines. On Thursday Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah denounced the "illegitimate foreign occupation" of Iraq while speaking at a gathering of the Arab League.

When asked about the King's comments White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino said "It is not accurate to say that the United States is occupying Iraq." Merriam-Webster defines 'occupy' as "to take or hold possession or control of " and 'occupation' as "the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force." It is farcical to argue that the presence of American forces in Iraq does not amount to an occupation of that nation, even if the level of control exercised is less than the war's architects desire.

To her credit the reporter inquiring of Ms. Perino was not satisfied, the entire exchange went as follows:

Q I have two questions on the Middle East. Has the President been in touch
with King Abdullah on his critical comments that we're wrong to be in Iraq?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm -- no. The President only spoke to President Roh
this morning, of South Korea. There have been no other calls that I know of.
Let me just remind you of something I said this morning, which is the United
States and Saudi Arabia cooperate on a wide number of issues. It is not accurate
to say that the United States is occupying Iraq. We are there under --

Q It is not right to say we're occupying Iraq --

MS. PERINO: That's right.

Q -- with 150,000 troops there?

MS. PERINO: Helen, we are there at the invitation of the sovereign government of Iraq that was democratically elected --

Q Did we invade that country?

MS. PERINO: We were there under the U.N. Security Council resolution, and we are there now at the -- I think one of the things to point out -- and I think somebody brought up the Talabani comments this morning -- is that he was talking about the initial when we -- initially when we went in, of establishing a coalition provisional authority, rather than an Iraqi provisional authority. And we were there --

Q Did we have a right to go in?

MS. PERINO: We were there under a U.N. mandate, yes.

Ms. Perino was also at least partly wrong when she said "When it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people." According to a recent poll taken by D3 Systems for BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV, and USA Today the majority of Iraqi people do not support the occupation of their country. 78% percent of Iraqi's either strongly (46%) or somewhat (32%) opposed "the presence of coalition forces in Iraq."

While the legitimacy of the US led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq can be debated, Ms. Perino is clearly wrong in her assertion that the US is not occupying Iraq and is grossly inaccurate in her indications that the Iraqi people have invited American forces into Iraq.

Africa is Africa

Running into another white person (or just foreigner if you're sensitive about it) in the middle of the Sahel is always a bit odd. After a year of living in a small village in Guinea (that's in West Africa ) I caught myself starting to stare whenever I would see another obviously foreign person in the big city. I stared at the Saudi Arabians, the Lebanese merchants, the American missionaries, the drum tourists, the Chinese technicians and the Russian/Eastern European miners. And yes, in Guinea , all of these people are white. But I didn't want to talk about racial politics, I wanted to talk about how much tourists piss me off.

I was waiting at the bus station in Kayes (Kai), Mali , trying to get myself onto the bus that was leaving to make the 1000 km trip to Dakar that day. I had spent the night on a filthy 'clando' bus that wasn't even supposed to carry passengers, but picked me and another woman up from where our first bus broke down the day before, less than half way from Bamako to Kayes, and I'd been awake since we arrived at 5 am. I felt like I was making a rare and adventurous excursion into the less traveled regions of the Sahel . And what happens? A white guy gets on my bus.

Now you have to understand, this attitude is exactly what pisses me off about tourists. I don't actually mind seeing a fellow traveler on a back road, I enjoy the company of most of these people, but sometimes I find they have a strange attitude about the places we're visiting. I'm not much of a tourist. I don't like to go places just for the spectacle, and I don't really want to go to the effort of meeting new people when I'm on vacation. I love living in places that are new to me, I love being surrounded by a culture different than my own, and I love wandering down strange streets or making long distance marathon trips from one place to another. But I don't think this is why most travelers come to Africa .

My bus companion turned out to be named Olivier, from Paris . He was teaching French as a volunteer in a school in Mbour , Senegal . We were sitting in the dust by the side of the road between Tambacounda and Dakar , waiting for the drivers to fix whatever part of the undercarriage had fallen off and started squealing and rattling... I think it was part of the drive train actually, when Olivier asked me what had disappointed me most about living in Africa . Despite his awkward English, this is a complaint I've become very familiar with.

To me, this is a part of the exotic myth of Africa , the 'real culture' that tourists come here expecting to find, that they demand and pay for and create in a way through the money that they throw at Rastas and artists. I don't know that I've ever met an African artist who was creating art predominantly for an African audience. This is in part due to the rampant poverty in Guinea , and the lack of a middle class. I would be very surprised if Senegal isn't light-years beyond Guinea in this respect, just as it is in every other respect. But to hear Olivier tell it, Africans have abandoned their culture, and this was his greatest disappointment, that they weren't living up to his idea of what Africa should be.

To be fair, Mbour, where my French acquaintance is based, is a tourist trap and a big city. But honestly, how much time does the average farmer have to go about making costumes out of animal skins and dancing? Dance, art, music, these are activities that require leisure time, and it's in short supply to your average hardworking subsistence farmer. Musicians and artists have leisure time because they get paid well by tourists to create a spectacle, sell them pot and talk about one love and unity. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but its a lucrative area of work. There are many many craft people I've met who don't fall into this category, but they aren't making as much money, and generally, if they don't party, they're not hanging out with tourists.

What really irritates me, though, is that this fringe of society is exactly what a certain kind of tourist comes to Africa to find; the "real" Africa , unpolluted by western ideals and capitalism. I mean, it isn't as disgusting as the sex tourists or the expats working and living abroad to take advantage of all those benefits: servants, younger, attractive companions, power, deference; but I find it almost as demeaning. What is the 'real culture' of Africa ?

Culture is a fluid concept. Africa is not a museum piece, and Africans are not immune to change, or isolated from modernization, and I see no reason why finding a village left in the last century would be a good thing. I say this because I think there are those among us who come to Africa looking for exactly that; a village untouched by modern convenience, sheltered from the passing of time, where the villagers still turn the soil with simple hand tools, and practice their ancient handicrafts exactly as their ancestors did. I think this bothers me for several reasons. Though mostly I think this is based on a misconception about culture. We don't dress like Victorians, we don't try to enforce stagnation of our own media, we are constantly searching for inspiration and innovation in art, and yet what we seek in Africa is preserved and stagnant. Culture is the constant evolution of a society's art. If you're interested in pre-colonial Africa, go to a library or a museum instead of going to Guinea and asking an artist to make the same mask over and over again because you think that's what Africans ought to do.

For the record, I have never seen anyone actually wear a mask in the two years I've been here. And while we're at it, the masks they sell to white people may be pretty, but they exist solely to be sold to tourists, and they were invented for that purpose. Don't get me wrong, I do think some of them are quite spectacular, and I'll probably get one to hang on my wall someday. What irritates me is not the existence of these things or the tourist trade itself, what irritates me are the tourists who insist on deluding themselves that they've brought back a piece of a noble and ancient culture.

I can't count how many times I've been passed in the street by some young tourist holding hands with a guy with dreads who won't even make eye contact because I don't fit into the image they've created for themselves. I don't like Rastas. I've fallen prey to the common Guinean stereotype that says that guys with dreads sell drugs, and that people who do drugs are 1: dishonest, 2: thieves, and 3: lazy. I have not met every Rasta in Guinea , but I have yet to spend enough time with one to get past the fact that what they want to do is get high and have sex. I want to be respected, and in African society, that means you don't hang out with the guys that everyone knows sells pot.

So how does this relate back to ideas about culture? I guess I don't really think that these tourists are getting to know the people that I like and respect, the everyday Guinean who doesn't seek out the company of tourists. The people that I work with are humble and dignified, and like people anywhere else in the world they want the best for themselves and their children. The people I know laugh and dance and sing when they have time, but they what they really want is electricity in their village, and running water, and a road. They want computers and a better education. They want a new car and a TV. I don't understand the position that it's a terrible shame that these are the things they want. If you live in a hut with a straw roof and a dirt floor, it's not just a change to get a tin roof and cement floor, it's a huge improvement.

And yes, everyone does want to go to America . They all want to go and make money and live the high life. What's wrong with that? Yes, it's true that not everyone in the US is rich. Yes, we have our own problems with poverty and disenfranchisement. But Guinea is an entire country without a sanitation system. This is a country that has floods of raw human waste (that's piss, shit and everything else) in the capital. Where the fuck does a tourist get off getting high and playing the drum and glorying in the absence of running water and roads? I've had my share of thrills off-roading, but I'm not about to go around claiming that there's anything noble about the isolation of tiny communities in the bush. And I'm certainly not about to romanticize the kind of life that people live without clean drinking water and a good education.

It infuriates me when I hear someone complain about the lack of culture in Africa . I miss discussions about art and movies, I miss galleries and museums, but the art is here, passion and creative spirit, entertainment, spectacle, and not all of it is just for tourists. Museums have to be supported by a government interested in promoting the arts, and by a society with the time and money to spend on such things. So tourists are either disappointed because they're looking for a romantic idea of the African bush, or they find for themselves a culture that has very little to do with daily life for most Africans. Either way, I find myself reminded of pseudo-anthropological treatises about the noble simplicity of the African savage. It sounds to me like a reduction, a simplification of the continent into a neat compartment that can be admired and put away, because its problems are rooted in the beauty of its passionate and elemental culture.

I guess I'm just mad that most people don't give a shit about Africa, and here are a bunch of curious adventuresome people who do care about Africa , but make it out to be something it's not.

-Becca Coppola

The War of Words

While American soldiers continue to perish amidst a battle that is not their own, American politicians continue to debate the merits of a time-line to bring 'the troops' home. In the current war of words among pundits and politicians over the situation in Iraq 'the troops' are constantly referenced. Pro and anti-war groups alike claim to "support our troops" or have the best interest of 'the troops' in mind.

The problem is that no one is actually talking about troops. True, there are groups of soldiers in Iraq, one of the definitions of 'troops'. 3200 'troops' have not given their lives in Iraq, however, 3200 soldiers have. Individual men and women have been killed and tens of thousands more injured and maimed. To depersonalize these individuals by labeling them with a term that has no singular sense, a troop does not return home in a casket, does them a grave disservice and insulates the American public from the horrors of war.

John McWhorter, a linguist at the Manhattan Institute, spoke eloquently about this issue on the Tuesday March 27th episode of All Things Considered:

The problem is that this usage of troops is only possible in the plural. One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop. This means that calling 20,000 soldiers "20,000 troops" depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight.

It's rather like the word news: there is no such thing as a "new," which is why news conveys a quickly passing blur of events leading one into the other, and also sounds slightly trivial. When something winds up "in the news," it sounds like it has taken a step down, been tatted up a bit.

And so it's almost fitting that it is in said news that masses of soldiers are typically referred to as troops. The Democrats are seeking to bring soldiers — persons — home, not troops. Mothers do not kiss their troop goodbye as he takes off for Anbar Province. One will never encounter a troop learning to use her prosthetic leg.

Using a name for soldiers that has no singular form grants us a certain cozy distance from the grievous reality of war. Meanwhile, it serves no purpose: It certainly isn't clearer than soldiers, and in fact is less clear, because one may wonder whether squadrons are meant rather than individuals.

Our national conversation about this war would be more honest if the usage of troops when one means soldiers was considered clumsy, and even rude. Our position on this war must be based on direct consideration of the fact that we are sending human beings to Iraq. After all, we do not designate the contents of a body bag as a troop.

A second troubling rhetorical construction that is unfortunately commonplace today is the 'war on terror'. Since the 9/11 attacks President Bush and his administration have declared war on terror. Sadly this is impossible. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser, recently pointed out:

The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

A strategy is not an enemy that can be sought out and confronted. The deliberate vagueness in the 'war on terror' has allowed the Bush Administration to wield it as a powerful tool in its incessant campaign of fear-mongering that the Administration has perpetrated on the American public for the past six years to great success. Among the other evils this turn of phrase has brought about Mr. Brzezinski points out that:

The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves.

The war of words which this nation finds itself mired in, has brought the level of discourse and understanding to disturbing new lows. Using words to mask and distort the issues at hand, important issues that are integral to the future of this country, is cowardly and dishonest.

The debate on Iraq concerns the safety and welfare of our soldiers. The war is against al Qaeda, who attacked the United States.

Names

Alicia’s husband hates me, Sonja’s parents are deaf. It can be incredibly difficult to remember people’s names. My friend Nick once met a girl five times and could never recall her name, I once had a girl come up to me while I was crossing the quad in college and tell me she was supposed to introduce herself to me when I was sober.

It’s definitely not an easy task to keep peoples names straight, especially when you’re not sure that you care. Drinking also does not help the situation. I met two guys that I went to high school with tonight, yes you read that correctly and yes it seemed a little weird. In my defense the high school that we attended was very large, about 3,000 kids, and these guys were a year behind me. Regardless of those mitigating circumstances while I vaguely recognized one of the pair, I would have sworn on a stack of bibles, despite that fact that I am either a non-practicing pagan, agnostic or an atheist depending on which day you ask me, that I had never before seen the other dude. Luckily, I suppose, my buddy Eric new who they were.

Eric is much better at remembering names than I am, mostly because he is smart enough to use them in whole sentences, such as Ethan is a season ticket holder, or either of the two that I stole from him to begin this essay. I, on the other hand, am absolutely fucking terrible at this game. I meet a lot of people in my day to day life, it involves boats and schmoozing, not writing, it’s kind of a long story, and for the most part I can’t remember their names seconds after they’ve introduced themselves. This may make me a bad person. It certainly won’t help the networking skills that my small expensive liberal arts college considered so important. I make snap judgments on whether or not I will ever meet people again and therefore if I will need to know their name at all. I would say that around 90% of the time I decide that the person in question is not someone with whom I will again cross paths and so I think about something else while he or she tells me his or her name. If I go on to have an interesting conversation with the person I feel bad about having either forgotten or never paid attention to their name. This would mean that my snap decision was wrong; this happens maybe 25% of the time. Probably less, seeing as how most people think I’m some sort of pirate and I hate people who think I’m a pirate and therefore don’t need to know or remember their names. If in the course of a conversation I decide that I have underestimated my new acquaintance and that I would indeed like to know their name I can normally pull of something along the lines of; ‘I’m sorry I’m bad with names, you were…?’ while shaking their hand and making eye contact. I’m good at eye contact. It scares some people when you manage to make and maintain eye contact; sometimes I do it just because I think that it’s interesting that it trips a lot of people up. It makes it easier for me to pull off this ‘I’m bad with names’ crap because I’m cute and have a nice smile; this does not mean that I am not full of shit. I am most definitely full of it, I have a government degree.

All of this is really just to say that it’s nice when you can remember someone’s name; they will appreciate the fact that you paid attention. They will feel good, so will you. This should be an easy thing for us to do, but it is decidedly not. Eric and Nick, another friend of mine who also recognized Ethan but could not remember his name, agree that it is a great way to end a conversation, especially one with business connotations, by using someone’s name. Let’s just hope you can remember if it’s Jim or James or maybe it was Jeff or John or Jamie could it have been Jake?

Say it with me everyone; Alicia’s husband hates me, and Sonja’s parents are deaf.

Note: This essay was originally written on 1/11/07 and appeared on an earlier version of this site

T-Shirts

My sister is wearing a t-shirt that says “Eric Hutchinson is pretty good”. This is an interesting statement, especially to be making on a t-shirt. Why would you proclaim to the world, or at least the slice of it that will see you in the course of your day, that someone is ‘pretty good’? I suppose you could find Eric and ask him but I know that he doesn’t really like to talk about what he does (I can’t blame him I don’t like doing that either, honestly who does?).

Besides I’m really just interested in t-shirts and how much interesting stuff you can read on someone’s chest these days. My t-shirt, which is buried under a quarter-zip sweater and a jacket and as such is unreadable, says “Moosehead Lake Maine 04441” just in case you wanted to send a postcard to the lake. My friend Nick is also sitting at the table and I don’t know what his t-shirt says since it is likewise covered by several layers, this is the problem with becoming interested in t-shirts in January, I should wait and ask these questions in June or July when I can read remarkable slogans on nearly everyone’s chest.

The spate of ‘retro’ t-shirts and the fact that you can get anything you want put on a t-shirt via the interweb mean that many many people are wearing shirts displaying sentiments that mean absolutely nothing to them, or that may mean a great deal to them but not because of what they say. One of my favorite t’s that finally met the rag bag said “U.S. Forest Service FIRE” across the back. Fire was written in very large letters, and consequently people were constantly asking me about fighting forest fires, or about Tahoe (the shirt said “Lake Tahoe Region” on the front) which was kind of nice since I enjoyed the attention. Only I’ve never even been to the state of Nevada, let alone fought forest fires around Lake Tahoe. So I guess my question is this: was I lying to everyone whenever I wore this shirt? Does it matter that I’m pretty sure the friend I inherited the shirt from was never in the Forest Service either? Would it be better if she had been? Does it mean anything that I did get the shirt from a friend and not from the thrift store? Since I hate rhetorical questions my answers are: yes kind of, maybe, yes, and yes definitely.

The second worst trend in fashion right now is the printing up of ‘retro’ t’s, the only thing worse is the practice of selling pants and shorts to twelve year old girls with slogans scrawled across the ass in a deliberate and desperate attempt to draw your attention, seriously there should be a law against this. The highest offenders of the ‘retro’ t crime wave are the companies that make, the stores that sell, and the morons who wear concert t-shirts that were made yesterday in Indonesia but claim to be from rock concerts in the 70’s. These people are most definitely lying to you, they were not at these concerts, most of the kids who wear these t’s weren’t even close to being alive during the tours their shirts announce. Sometimes an entirely genuine t can end up putting you in an unfortunately awkward situation or even a fortunately awkward one. The later being exemplified when I wore my “Dean for America” t into a shop selling “friends don’t let friends vote democrat” shirts, the proprietors were horrified, they may have thought I was going to trash the place, and I may or may not have alluded to doing so.

Nick has just told me and my sister, Becca, his favorite t-shirt story too, it involves a decidedly unfortunate situation that is hilarious in its awkwardness. Nick’s friend James had been in a death-metal band at one point and they had made t’s proclaiming that they supported necrophilia; specifically the shirts said “I support necrophilia” and had a box that was checked off. Well, James’ grandmother passed away suddenly and he had to rush to the funeral. The only shirt that his mom, mind you, managed to bring for him to wear was, yes you saw this one coming, his necrophilia supporter’s t.

I kid you not folks this kind of stuff will happen to you. James wasn’t lying to anyone, but the rest of his family didn’t need to know he was all for some corpse f**cking while they were burying his grandma. So choose your t’s carefully, if you’re frightened go with a solid color, and if you’re going to make a statement try not to lie to me. And by the way, Eric Hutchinson is pretty good.

Note: This essay was originally written on 1/8/07 and appeared on an earlier version of this site

John McCain Can't Handle The Truth

Updated Below

Senator, and Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain became this week's greatest abuser of the truth as pertaining to the situation in Iraq when he claimed that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.” Mr. McCain made the statement on Bill Bennett's Morning in America radio show on Monday morning.

For a refreshing change, CNN's Wolf Blitzer actually questioned Mr. McCain on his claim on Tuesday, not surprisingly Mr. McCain offered more lies in response:

BLITZER: Here’s what you told Bill Bennett on his radio show on Monday. “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today. The U.S. is beginning to succeed in Iraq.”

Everything we hear if you leave the so-called Green Zone, the international zone, and you go outside of that secure area, relatively speaking, you’re in trouble if you’re an American.

McCAIN: That’s where you ought to catch up on things, Wolf. General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.

Not only did Mr. McCain claim falsely that General Petraeus travels in an "unarmed humvee," he also blamed the press for not reporting the situation in Iraq accurately. Again, in a welcome surprise, CNN chose to refute the Senator's misleading and false statements. To do so Mr. Blitzer talked to reporter Michael Ware, who has been stationed in Baghdad for the past four years, and as such is familiar with the actual situation on the ground:

Well, I’d certainly like to bring Sen. McCain up to speed if he ever gives me the opportunity. And if I have any difficulty hearing you right now Wolf, that’s because of the helicopters circling overhead and the gun battle that is blazing away just a few blocks down the road. Is Baghdad any safer? Sectarian violence, one particular type of violence, is down. But none of the American generals here on the ground have anything like Sen. McCain’s confidence. I mean, Sen. McCain’s credibility now on Iraq, which has been so solid to this point, is now being left out hanging to dry. To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll. And to think that Gen. David Petraeus travels this city in an unarmed humvee? I mean, in the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a humvee. There’s multiple humvees around it, heavily armed. There’s attack helicopters, predator drones, sniper teams, all sorts of layers of protection. So, no, Sen. McCain is way off base on this one.

CNN's refusal to accept Mr. McCain's pro-war talking points as the truth is commendable, and a sign that real reporting does, if only occasionally, still exist and emerge from the bowels of the main stream media. Lest anyone should be disinclined to believe Mr. Ware's description of the security situation in Iraq it should be noted that two Americans were killed inside the heavily fortified 'Green Zone' in Baghdad on Tuesday. How can Mr. McCain even pretend that other neighborhoods might be safe when the most heavily guarded section of Iraq is currently unsafe for Americans to walk about in?

Mr. McCain's blind support of the war in Iraq is disturbing enough, his championing of it with false rhetoric and claims of success that are simply untrue are grossly negligent and dangerous in the extreme.

Think Progress and Crooks and Liars have more.

Update:

Think Progress has a report of Mr. McCain denying that he said "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee." CNN's John Roberts, in a continuation of its good coverage and reporting on this story, confronted Mr. McCain this morning:

ROBERTS: Senator, did you mean to say that, that General Petraeus goes out every day in an unarmed humvee?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I mean that there are neighborhoods safe in Iraq and he does go out into Baghdad and the fact is there has been significant progress and people are stuck in a time warp of three months ago. Of course, it’s still dangerous. Of course it’s still very dangerous. We only have two of the five brigades there and we are already seeing significant progress.

ROBERTS: Because I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored humvee. You also told Bill Bennett on his radio program on Monday. You said there are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhood today yet retired General Barry McCaffrey said no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection. We’ve got two different stories here. Who’s right?

McCAIN: Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.

Mr. Roberts also deserves credit for actually investigating pro-war claims and not simply repeating them as truth as happens all too often. Another bit of actual journalism was conducted by the Washington Post, which covered retired General Barry McCaffrey's new report on the situation in Iraq that Mr. Roberts mentioned. In his report Mr. McCaffrey states that:

"no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO [nongovernmental organization], nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection."

Mr. McCaffery goes on to say of the situation in Iraq "the US Armed Forces are in a position of strategic peril," and to sum up the Iraqi viewpoint as such; "The population is in despair. Life in many of the urban areas is now desperate." Further proof that Mr. McCain has misled the public and falsely characterized the situation in Iraq by lying about the situation on the ground.

When investigated Mr. McCain's claims proved to be false. His solution was to deny that he made them in the first place, apparently in Mr. McCain's reasoning one bad lie deserves another.

Deaf, Dumb, and Blind; Just Not Mute

For over six years now the main stream media, particularly its members who reside in this nation's capitol city, have remained silent and obediently complicit as the Bush Administration rides roughshod over the Constitution, the rule of law, and most of the general principles upon which this country was founded.

Through abuse after abuse, lie after lie, breach after breach, and crime after crime the media has remained deaf, dumb, and blind. The abdication of journalistic integrity and responsibility has been complete and total.

Until recently it was easier for the main stream media to behave this way and the media elites in Washington D.C. appear to hope that it will remain so. For the first six years of the Bush Administration whenever something questionable or untoward arose, regardless of its deeper implication or blatant criminality, the press blithely repeated the Administration's talking points. The main stream media took to the airwaves and to the pages of newspapers and magazines to assure the American public that there was no real wrongdoing, that the President could be trusted, that even asking or hinting about impropriety would make America less safe, that the mere suggestion that the Administration was overstepping its bounds or trampling on the Constitution would aid the terrorists, that dissent was unpatriotic, and that everything would work out just fine if we simply did not ask so many questions.

And so terrorists attacked America on September 11th and no questions were asked, and American invaded Iraq and the questions were thrown aside. Those who dared to ask them were labeled as unpatriotic and quickly shouted down. American's were spied on illegally by their own government and it was business as usual, a great American city was flooded and destroyed and the blame was passed along. Things went from bad to worse and justification to justification in Iraq and we were told to stay the course.

It has been more difficult of late for the main stream media and its D.C. talking heads to aid and abet the Administration's gross derelictions of duty. Finally there is a voice in this country again that believes in responsibility and accountability. The American people elected Democrats to Congress because they were tired of corruption in the White House and the complacency of the Republican Congress. This new Congress has begun to stand up for the people who elected it, and to question and demand answers from an Administration not used to giving them and a press not used to asking them. The treatment of soldiers has been investigated, and the conduct of the war in Iraq is finally being examined, and the abrogation of justice through overt politicization at the Department of Justice is under investigation as well.

Still the Administration insists that everything is okay because they say so, and the press goes right along insisting that the Administration does and will tell the truth blindly ignoring all of the accumulated evidence. The press takes the Administration's talking point that subpoenas and investigations are but show trials and that the Democrats have but a political ax to grind, ignoring both the pursuit of the truth as well as a Constitutional responsibility to oversight.

The main stream media has grown too comfortable with a government behind closed doors. Their friends in power have sedated them and sown effectively the seeds of apathy which now poison our nation's journalists. Journalism should construe nothing less than a zealous and unending pursuit of the truth, and in America that right is codified in law.

With what country have the press confused America? With whom have they confused its citizens? For how long will they continue to call themselves journalists without deserving the name?

Glenn Greenwald and Media Matters offer more details.