MediaBloodhound

Story of the Day: WashPo Fails to Mention Military Cover-Up

Coming off news Monday that the U.S. military falsely reported the cause of death of at least seven U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Washington Post today published an article about a soldier who died in an ambush involving local police (you know, the ones we’re training to stand up, so we can “stand down”). The story fails to note, however, that the Pentagon initially - and willfully - falsified the cause of death in its statements to the press and the soldier's family.

As reported by Editor & Publisher’s Greg Mitchell:

The Post story by Amit Paley visits the Sholeh police station in Baghdad, where posters "celebrating Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army militia, dot the building's walls.” One rainy night this month, it seems, the Sholeh police set up an ambush and killed Army Cpl. Kenny F. Stanton Jr., 20, said to be a “budding journalist.” At the time, Paley writes, Stanton and other members of the unit “had been trailing a group of Sholeh police” escorting known Mahdi Army members.

"How can we expect ordinary Iraqis to trust the police when we don't even trust them not to kill our own men?" asked Capt. Alexander Shaw, head of the police transition team of the 372nd Military Police Battalion.

We can’t. And that appears to be what's driving this cover-up.

The Bush administration’s latest effort to bolster support for the war hinges on the Iraqi military and police force being fully trained in 12 to 18 months. News of our troops being ambushed and murdered by the very people they’re training would be a devastating PR blow to the White House. A cover-up of this news even more embarrassing.

So E&P’s Mitchell did some digging and uncovered exactly how Stanton’s death was originally reported.

Here’s the Los Angeles Times account of Oct. 22: “While patrolling Baghdad on Oct. 13, Stanton was killed when a roadside bomb exploded near his Humvee just two weeks after his 20th birthday. Two others were injured.” Nothing about an ambush by our U.S.-funded and trained police allies.

Here’s how the Press-Enterprise in Riverside described it: “Pfc. Kenny Francis Stanton Jr., 20, of Hemet, died Oct. 13 in Baghdad from injuries he suffered after a bomb detonated near his armored Humvee, U.S. Army spokesman Sheldon Smith said Monday.

“Smith said the incident occurred about 9:10 p.m., Baghdad time, while Stanton was inside the vehicle on patrol. He said it's uncertain if the bomb was set off after the vehicle ran over it or if it was set to explode remotely.”

…

The Pentagon officially records it as a "hostile fire--IED attack" fatality, occurring in "southwest Baghdad."

…

For the victim's hometown Valley Chronicle, Lt. Col. Lee Packnett of Army media relations added the detail that Stanton was wearing body armor “when an improvised explosive device -- or IED, one of the weapons most commonly used against U.S. forces -- detonated under or near the vehicle.”

All of the many accounts describe the incident similarly.

So even if it really happen that way -- ambushed by IED, not gunfire or grenade -- the official military story (and therefore the official press story) leaves out one rather key fact: that Stanton was killed not by insurgents or terrorists or “foreign fighters,” but by the Iraqi police.

How many other such deaths have occurred – and been falsely related and reported?

We may never know the answer to that question. But while the White House ratchets up specious campaign-season accusations of Democrats not supporting our troops, one thing is certain: in light of such cover-ups of our soldiers’ deaths, Bush administration hypocrisy has risen to new heights and, like the mayhem in Iraq, shows no sign of letup.

U.S. Soldier Murdered By Iraqi Police -- And Then the Cover-up
By Greg Mitchell
Editor and Publisher

Story of the Day: Rumsfeld/AP Spin Hearts and Minds

With bloodshed in Iraq soaring and October now the fourth deadliest month of the war for U.S. troops, how is Secretary of Defense Donald "Back Off" Rumsfeld addressing the situation?

The Pentagon is buttressing its public relations staff and starting an operation akin to a political campaign war room as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld faces intensifying criticism over the Iraq war.

In a memo obtained by the Associated Press, Dorrance Smith, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said new teams of people will "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and "correct the record."

Contextually speaking, what people in the reality-based community call "lying."

The memo describes an operation modeled after a political campaign — such as that made famous by Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential race — calling for a "Rapid Response" section for quickly answering opponents' assertions.

These people have been relentlessly distorting the truth for six years. How much worse can the newspeak get? Moreover, it's one thing for AP writer Lolita C. Baldor to say the goal of the Pentagon's new PR plan is "for quickly answering opponents' assertions." But it's irresponsible to let such a falsehood stand on its own. This directive is much less about responding to "assertions" than it is about obfuscating facts and blunting valid criticism.

Another branch would coordinate "surrogates." In political campaigns, surrogates are usually high-level politicians or key interest groups who speak or travel on behalf of a candidate or an issue.

The plan would focus more resources on so-called new media, such as the Internet and Weblogs. It would also include new workers to book civilian and military guests on television and radio shows.

Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff did not provide the exact number of people to be hired, or the costs.

What's funny is how much this plan mirrors their dead-end strategy in Iraq. The article frames this news as though such a PR push has not been ongoing throughout the Iraq fiasco, from the leadup to the war to this very day.

So, in essence, here's the new plan: Do more of it. And address the symptoms rather than the cause.

As the article progresses, it's clear the stenography-laden journalism initially hinted at by its author will carry the rest of the piece. Not one person outside the Pentagon - not a Democrat, a journalist, a member of a watchdog group, a U.S. soldier or a parent of one - was interviewed or quoted for this story.

Rumsfeld has complained bitterly that the press focuses too much attention on bad news coming out of Iraq, and not enough on progress being made there. As an example, during a trip to Nevada earlier this year, he said he was deeply troubled by the success of terrorist groups in "manipulating the media" to influence Westerners.

"That's the thing that keeps me up at night," he said during a question-and-answer session at a naval base.

When no counterpoint accompanies this nonsense, by omission, it lends credence to the patently absurd charge that terrorists are influencing the words of U.S. journalists. Furthermore, what keeps me - and a growing number of Americans - up at night is the spiraling disaster in Iraq and our rapidly receding democracy here at home.

So pop a Tylenol PM, Rummy, and cry us a river.

The Pentagon changes, in the works for months, come as voters prepare to go to the polls next week with the war in Iraq as a key issue. Polls suggest that the Republicans could lose their majority in the House, and perhaps the Senate, too.

...

Ruff said today that the reorganization, spearheaded by Smith, will help the department "set the record straight" and provide accurate, timely information.

He denied that the effort was set up to respond to the eroding public support for the war, or that it was aimed at helping in next week's elections. He also said he would not call it an "information operations" program, which generally refers to a propaganda-type campaign.

Isn't this article part of the Pentagon's new stepped-up PR strategy? Exactly how many lies can a journalist transcribe into a "news" article without including an opposing point of view or the least bit of context based on factual information? The last paragraph above reads like a parody of a government official spouting the party line. Yes, I'm suuure this program has nothing to do with plummeting support for the war or next week's elections. How could anyone have drawn that conclusion? And "propaganda-type campaign"? Of course not.

This guy gives Nathan Thurm a run for his money. He just needs a cigarette, some twitchiness and a bead of sweat on his upper lip.

It's comforting to see the Associated Press act as if it's an arm of the Pentagon. Well, maybe this will cut down somewhat on the percentage of journalists being threatened with treason.

Pentagon Memo Reveals Launch of New PR War
By Lolita C. Baldor
The Associated Press (via Raw Story)

Story of the Day: Tom Tomorrow Tackles Lieberman's Independence

(Editor's Note: Look for a new Armies of Compassion cartoon next Sunday.)

Some call Joe Lieberman a centrist. Others call him a traitor to his own party, a Bush lapdog, a neo-con enabler, a hawk, a hypocrite and an utter disgrace.

I'll let you guess which camp I'm in.

Joe Lieberman: The Independent Thinker, by Tom Tomorrow
This Modern World

NYT Front|Back: Germ-Free Campaigning vs. Dirty U.S. Contracts in Iraq

FRONT:

In Clean Politics, Flesh Is Pressed, Then Sanitized
In the final days of a campaign season, with so much at stake for the future of our country, what could be more important than the growing popularity of hand sanitizer among politicians? I wish this were satire. Then it might be funny. Instead, this article must go down as one of the saddest excuses for a cover story our Paper of Record could present at the moment.

Though the story makes cotton candy appear weighty, it still manages, however, to paint one politician (and only one), Bill Clinton, in an unfavorable light.

In one semifamous cleanliness lapse in the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton, who had just shaken dozens of hands at a tavern in Boston, was handed a pie but no fork on his way to the car. The ravenous Mr. Clinton promptly devoured it using his unwashed hand.

Nice. Take a president crucified for a blowjob and describe him eating pie with the words "ravenous" and "devoured." The implied debauchery is palpable. You can almost hear the editors chuckling over the ham-handed subtext.

Intro:

Campaigns are filthy. Not only in terms of last-minute smears and dirty tricks. But also as in germs, parasites and all the bacterial unpleasantness that is spread around through so much glad-handing and flesh-pressing.

Excerpts:

Politics is personal at all levels, and germs do not discriminate. Like chicken dinners and lobbyists, they afflict Democrats and Republicans alike. It would be difficult to find an entourage that does not have at least one aide packing Purell.

...

Mr. [Bill] Richardson said that if he ran for president, as he is considering, he had no intention of conforming to the norms of his antiseptic peers.

“I just won’t use the sanitizer,” he said. “I’ve been offered it, but I’ve turned it down.”

This positions Mr. Richardson as the early hygienic maverick of 2008.

“I’m not afraid to get my hands dirty,” he said.

(Incidentally, the article ended on these words. A story so cloying, pointless and insulting to the intelligence of its readers that I felt like I needed a hand sanitizer after putting it down.)

BACK (Page A8):

Report Says Iraq Contractor Is Hiding Data From U.S.
First, this headline is unnecessarily misleading. The "Iraq contractor" in question is Halliburton subsidiary KBR, an American company. As such, the headline gives the false impression that an Iraq company is concealing something from the U.S. government, when it is actually the subsidiary of Vice President Cheney's former company. KBR, along with Halliburton, is part of Cheney's group of war profiteers that have been bilking American taxpayers for billions of dollars while botching everything in their path.

In an election-season gift to the Bush administration, The Times editors not only keep this story off the cover, but the headline further obfuscates who is behind this shameless war profiteering.

KBR's contracts, totaling about $20 billion, "are for housing, food, fuel and other necessities for American troops and government officials in Iraq, and for restoring that country’s crucial oil infrastructure."

So what is KBR is hiding?

The oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, said KBR had refused to disclose information as basic as how many people are fed each day in its dining facilities and how many gallons of fuel are delivered to foreign embassies in Iraq, claiming that the data was proprietary, meaning it would unfairly help its business competitors.

Would you expect anything less from a Halliburton subsidiary?

Here's how KBR has gotten away with it thus far:

Proprietary information is protected by the so-called federal acquisition regulations, known as FAR. But the agency said KBR routinely stamped nearly all of the data it collects on its work as proprietary, impeding not only the investigations into the company’s activities but also things as simple as managerial oversight of the work.

While our soldiers are dying at an ever-alarming rate, with October the deadliest month of the year, Cheney's corporate raiders continue to busily rape the Iraq war chest. Abundantly clear as well is that had there been fair bidding for contracts, KBR - also under investigation for multiple shady dealings, some dating back two decades - would have almost certainly been denied business without Cheney's scheming.

Excerpts:

“The use of proprietary data markings on reports and information submitted by KBR to the government is an abuse of the FAR and the procurement system,” says a memo released yesterday by the special inspector general.

As a result, the memo said, “KBR is not protecting its own data, but is in many instances inappropriately restricting the government’s use of information that KBR is required to gather for the government.”

...

A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Cathy Mann, did not dispute the company’s extensive use of the proprietary label but said, “KBR has included proprietary markings on the majority of its data and property in support of its government contracts for the U.S. Army for at least the last decade.”

...

Ms. Mann added that KBR believed that the use of proprietary markings in work for the United States government “is not only encouraged, but required” by federal laws restricting the disclosure of American trade secrets abroad.

With the release of the new memo, that argument is unlikely to gain much traction with members of Congress, federal investigators and the numerous critics who have been calling for access to information on KBR’s work in Iraq almost since the invasion ended.

“The arrogance is astounding on the part of KBR,” said William L. Nash, a retired Army major general who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on postconflict zones. “It’s time for Congress to step in, because this has just gone too far.”

...

The company could have other liabilities. Outside Iraq, the papers say, there is a Justice Department investigation into possible overcharges in its work in the Balkans from 1996 to 2000. And the securities commission and the Justice Department are investigating payments in Nigeria that may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars the bribing of foreign officials.

There is also an antitrust investigation, and the company says investigations into the Nigerian project found information that “former employees may have engaged in coordinated bidding with one or more competitors on certain foreign construction projects and that such coordination possibly began as early as the mid-1980s.”

The memo by the inspector general said that KBR would sometimes provide data to one part of the United States government, like Pentagon auditors, but with the proprietary label that would prevent its release to the public or even to other parts of the government.

In other cases that clearly irritated the inspector general’s auditors, KBR would hobble their work by releasing data in the form of gigantic but indigestible tables rather than within the kind of software — like Excel spreadsheets — that would let the auditors do their calculations.

Those findings have raised suspicions that if KBR was going to such lengths to keep the data out of the hands of auditors, then the company must have something to hide, said Frederick D. Barton, a director of the Postconflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“There’s been smoke for some time,” Mr. Barton said. “This seems to indicate that there was fire as well.”

From the Archives: Rove Accuses Dems of “Paper-Cutting and Running”

(This Wounded-Courier article was originally posted on June 23, 2006. Just think of how much our national political discourse has improved since then.)

WASHINGTON, DC - With Senate Democrats already in retreat after attempting to impose an exit strategy in Iraq, White House senior advisor Karl Rove stepped up his attacks earlier today, accusing the Democratic Party of “paper-cutting and running.”

Speaking in Lynchburg, Tenn., to Republicans Against Tits (RAT), an undersexed think tank sworn to stanch the tide of exposed nipples in America, Karl Rove went on the offensive again. “The Democrats see war and ask, ‘Why?’ Republicans see war and ask, ‘Why not?’” he said to the wild applause of the militantly frumpy audience.

With the overwhelming unpopularity of Bush’s war in Iraq, the recent grim milestone of 2,500 dead U.S. soldiers and no end in sight to rapacious violence and spiraling civil war, Rove had ample opportunity to take it to the Democrats after they proposed an exit strategy but disagreed on the timetable. “First the Democrats want to cut and run before achieving victory. But now they can’t even agree on when to cut and run. If you ask me, that’s more like paper-cutting and running. How these people decide what tie to wear in the morning is beyond me.”

Later, on CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, “If we could just put aside for the moment the idea of winning the war against the insurgents or, say, the War on Terror, Wolf. The Republicans are united in our tactical assault on the Democrats’ politically motivated willingness to walk away from a no-win quagmire. And I’m confident the American people understand this.”

On Hardball last night, host Chris Matthews called the Democrats “dead meat on a stick” if they think Americans won’t see them as “effete, Chardonnay-sipping, pinky-in-the-air holding sissy-pants” for requesting an actual exit plan in Iraq. “I think Bush comes off like a finely tailored Genghis Khan here. A real modern-day warrior who is not shaken by the blood of other people’s children. And you have to respect that kind of manly tenacity in the face of an unwinnable war.”

Some wondered if the Republicans have already won the 2006 elections based on weeklong blows to the Democrats’ testicles. Attending a fundraiser sponsored by Republicans Against Minimum (RAM) – an economics society that claims raising the minimum wage would only make poor people fatter - Senator Orin Hatch reasoned,  “There’s only so much emasculation a party can take before it drops to its knees and weeps the tears of little girls and lost puppies.”

Critics complain that President Bush and the Republican Party have no plan for bringing U.S. troops home and point to polls showing the majority of Americans in favor of a timetable for withdrawal. Decorated war veteran Senator John Kerry, his own military record still under question, offered a plan for full troop withdrawal by July 2007. Said Kerry, “The Republicans and Karl Rove first say cut and run. Now paper-cutting and running. All right. But do you know what their plan is? I’ll tell you precisely what their plan is, and I won’t hesitate to allow the words to pass over my lips and reach your ears, ears that are eager for enlightenment. That much I can most certainly promise you. An oath, if you will, from me to you. And now I will no longer forestall my rather incisive rejoinder. So, here it goes, ready or not. Their plan is, without further adieu, ‘lie and die.’ That’s right, you heard me. Lie and die.” Kerry nodded. “That’s right, lie and die. Catchy, huh?”

The normally soft-spoken Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid, appearing somewhat haggard and smelling faintly of gin and potato chips after a week of unsuccessfully prodding his fellow Democrats to reach common ground, showed some strain today outside the Capitol. “Look, I don’t even have the energy anymore. Are all of you guys in the press smoking monkey dust or something?” Walking away, Reid was heard muttering, “We get hit by al-Qaeda, we attack Iraq. Up is down. Left is right. Peace is war. What, are you f***ing kidding me?”

Following the devastating week of Democratic internal strife, National Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman suggested on Live with Regis and Kelly this morning that Democrats should cede all matters of the Iraq War to the Republicans. “Why fight it anymore?” Melhman said with a shrug. “They’re not a party that enjoys unnecessarily spilling the blood of young men and women. It’s a weakness. It’s maybe time they own up to it and focus on their other strengths.”

Story of the Day: Matt Lauer Speaks for Heartless Bastards Everywhere

It's bad enough that NBC's Today co-host Matt Lauer has shamelessly plugged books for the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly and championed the hawkish worldview of neo-cons such as Newt Gingrinch. But today Lauer revealed a side of himself even his detractors may not have guessed.

On the subject of Rush Limbaugh's accusation that Michael J. Fox was "either off his medication or acting" to play up effects of his Parkinson's disease during a campaign ad promoting stem cell research, Lauer asked right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, "Didn't Rush Limbaugh just say what a lot of people were privately thinking?"

I don't know what circles Lauer runs in, but what would make him come to the conclusion that "a lot" of people would share Limbaugh's appalling view? To accuse someone who is suffering from a disease of faking it for the camera is about as rock bottom as public discourse can sink. I would venture to say that most Americans were certainly not thinking this when they saw that ad. Rather, most probably, the majority of citizens thought: What a horrible disease. I hope we find a cure soon. Or, maybe, if they were Republicans, but not black-hearted neo-cons, they thought: Wow. That ad was powerful. Yes, that could hurt our chances on Election Day. But what a horrible disease. Maybe something more should be done about it.

The most insidious and irresponsible aspect of Lauer's statement, however, is not it's surface callousness and brutish view of public sentiment, but its subtext, which was exactly the goal of Limbaugh's statement to begin with: blame the victim. From the 9/11 wives to Cindy Sheehan to wounded soldiers denied medical care, it's been a long-running Republican tactic during the Bush years.

Human life is cheap to them, unless it hasn't been born yet or is already brain-dead.

But blaming the victim, of course, is just part and parcel of how these people operate. They regularly partake in or promote cruel and patently illegal acts - say, torture or warrentless wire-tapping - then claim they are the righteous ones, that they are performing these vile abuses of power for our own good, all in the name of protecting us from the evildoers.

This twisted Orwellian logic has saturated our airwaves and newspapers for six years now. And though, sadly and tragically, it has been successful in manipulating a terrorized populace - terrorized by no entity more than our own government, with support from our mainstream media - polls suggest that Americans have had enough.

Lauer's assertion would've been correct had the predominance of our citizens succumbed to the cruel impulses tirelessly promoted by this thuggish administration. Fortunately, for the sake our nation's soul, that is not the case.

As a country conceived in democracy, we may be in our last throes, but we are not dead yet.

Lauer on Limbaugh's Michael J. Fox Attacks, by Ryan Chiachiere
Media Matters

Story of the Day: Questions No One Has Asked Karl Rove

NPR's Robert Siegel had a somewhat testy interview with Karl Rove yesterday. It took place at the White House during "Radio Day," a speed-dating atmosphere where administration officials are interviewed, one-by-one, by a bevy of predominantly conservative radio talk-show hosts.

While I applaud Siegel for not treating Rove like royalty (as have most in the mainstream media), he still failed to ask Bush's brain - aka "Turd Blossom" - some very pertinent questions.

Here's the most heated part of their conversation (followed by questions Siegel should've posed):

MR. ROVE: I see several things. First of all, unlike the general public, I'm allowed to the see the polls on the individual races. And after all, this does come down to individual contests between individual candidates.

...

MR. SIEGEL: We're in the home stretch, though. And many might consider you on the optimistic end of realism about --

MR. ROVE: Not that you would be exhibiting a bias or anything like that. You're just making a comment.

MR. SIEGEL: I'm looking at all the same polls that you're looking at every day.

MR. ROVE: No you're not. No you're not!

MR. SIEGEL: No, I'm not --

MR. ROVE: I'm looking at 68 polls a week. You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally, but that do not impact the outcome --

MR. SIEGEL: -- name races between -- certainly Senate race

MR. ROVE: Well, like the polls today showing that Corker's ahead in Tennessee; or the race -- polls showing that Allen is pulling away in the Virginia Senate race.

MR. SIEGEL: Leading Webb in Virginia. Yes.

MR. ROVE: Yeah, exactly.

MR. SIEGEL: Have you seen the DeWine race and the Santorum race and -- I don't want to --

MR. ROVE: Yeah. Look, I'm looking at all these Robert and adding them up. And I add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House. You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to "the" math.

MR. SIEGEL: I don't know if you're entitled to a different math, but you're certainly entitled to --

MR. ROVE: I said you were entitled to yours.

In an ideal world, Siegel might have asked:

1) As a public servant, why are you privy to polls that reporters and American citizens are not? Does that seem like part of a democratic process to you?

2) How are we, as reporters, supposed to do our jobs if you won't show us precisely how you're getting your poll numbers? Why should we believe your findings when, without proof, they amount to hearsay? Or is there something else you're not telling us?

3) Many people in this country believe that our electoral process, specifically related to electronic voting machines, is unreliable. Reputable computer experts have confirmed that these machines are easily vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. What is your view of the electronic voting machines? And how do you respond to accusations by a growing number of Americans who believe the 2004 election may have been stolen through such manipulation?

4) On election night 2004, while the exit polls showed Kerry ahead, you contacted network and cable news programs to let them know your numbers revealed a different story. No one thought to ask you then: Where were you getting your numbers, sir? On what were they based? And do you have any physical proof that would allow us to verify their existence?

5) Prior to the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections, exit polls in this country have always been accurate. What do you think changed during these two elections? Was this just a coincidence? And if you don't believe in the usefulness and reliability of exit polling, why is it still the number one method of monitoring the integrity of overseas elections?

Someone in the mainstream media needs to finally ask Karl Rove these questions. We've been waiting long enough for the answers.

No one in a democracy should own "the" math. 

Rove 'Dukes It Out' with NPR Host Over Polling Data
Raw Story

Story of the Day: These Are the Stakes

We know freedom of the press has taken a beating under the Bush regime. Reporters Without Borders now brings us the actual numbers. From today's Washington Post:

Some poor countries, such as Mauritania and Haiti, improved their record in a global press freedom index this year, while France, the United States and Japan slipped further down the scale of 168 countries rated, the group Reporters Without Borders said yesterday.

...

Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.

"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,' " the group said.

"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism," the group said.

Lucie Morillon, the organization's Washington representative, said the index is based on responses to 50 questions about press freedom asked of journalists, free press organizations, researchers, human rights activists and others.

How bad is this? Consider where France wound up on the index:

France, 35th, dropped five places since last year because of searches of media offices and journalists' homes, as well as physical attacks on journalists during a trade union dispute, the group said.

That's right. France falls five places in the index because its government allowed the searching of "media offices and journalists' homes," in addition to "physical attacks on journalists," yet it still ranked 18 points higher than the United States.

Where are our freedom fries now?

We could easily see our despotic leader responding to this figure with the same dismissiveness with which he reacted to findings that roughly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of his war of choice. Maybe, in similar fashion, he'd applaud journalists for being so dedicated to freedom of the press that they're willing to risk jail sentences and bodily harm. Or he might claim these figures have been largely "discredited." He may even say something simple, such as these rankings go up and down all the time and being 53rd is not nearly as bad as it sounds.

Yet, most likely, members of our national press corps won't ask Bush, or any of his officials, to respond to this index. Never mind that freedom of the press is the very lifeblood of their livelihood. At least, it's supposed to be. Ironically enough, is there a better example of the mainstream media's unwillingness to stand up to this administration than the fact that the editors of the Washington Post chose to bury this article on page A15? A study exposes the precipitous dismantling of our press - the backbone of any free nation - and, in a supreme display of spinelessness, they slip it in where the fewest numbers of readers will see it.

Nevertheless, despite what Bush might say if a reporter does happen to confront him on this study, here is the reality:

Northern European countries top the index, with no reported censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals, either by officials or the public, in Finland, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All of those countries were ranked in first place.

This is where we should be as a country, but we're not even close. And if we continue down our current path, or even switch gears but fail to swiftly remedy such anti-democratic legislation as the Military Commissions Act, then this is what we can look forward to:

Iran ranks 162nd, between Saudi Arabia and China. The report said conditions in Russia and Belarus have not improved. It said that Russia continued to steadily dismantle the independent media and that the recent slaying of investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya "is a poor omen for the coming year."

If anything should have been a wake-up call to our press, it was the mob-like slaying of Politkovskaya. 

A journalist shot to death in an apparent contract killing was about to publish a story about torture and abductions in Chechnya when she was slain, her editor said Sunday, as Russia's top prosecutor took charge of the case.

Anna Politkovskaya, famed for her unsparing coverage of abuses against civilians in Chechnya in the outspoken newspaper Novaya Gazeta, was found dead Saturday in the elevator of her Moscow apartment building. She had two gunshot wounds - one to the head.

Politkovskaya, 48, had collected witness accounts and photos of tortured bodies and the article had been due for publication Monday, her newspaper's editors said.

...

The execution-style killing underlined the increasingly dangerous environment for journalists working in Russia since President Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, launching a crackdown on media freedoms. Her death brings to at least 13 the number of journalists killed in contract-style killings in the past six years, according to the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists.

Politkovskaya's death was the most high-profile slaying of a journalist in Russia since the July 2004 assassination of Paul Klebnikov, the U.S.-born editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine.

...

Politkovskaya had come under threat repeatedly. In 2004, she fell seriously ill with symptoms of food poisoning after drinking tea on a flight from Moscow to southern Russia during the school hostage crisis in Beslan. Her colleagues suspected the incident was an attempt on her life.

Politkovskaya, who had two adult children, began reporting on Chechnya in 1999 during Russia's second military campaign there, concentrating less on military engagements than on the human side of the war.

Unfortunately, her story has had no effect on our mainstream media. These eagle-eyed editors and reporters have failed to see the neon writing on the wall. And maybe this will continue until it's written in the blood of their own colleagues.

As opposed to what this White House and its Republican lapdogs want us to believe, these are the real stakes in the coming election.

U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower, by Nora Boustany
The Washington Post

Story of the Day: MSM's Muted Coverage of Israel's Illegal Weaponry

During this summer's conflict in Lebanon, the Israeli government denied using phosphorus bombs against its targets, a specific breach of international law. Now, months later, with media and public attention diverted to other parts of the world, Israel admits these bombs were, in fact, employed in battle.

From today's Independent U.K. article:

Cabinet Minister Jacob Edery confirmed that the army had used the bombs to attack "military targets" during its war with Hizbollah in July and August. Previously, Israel had said the bombs had only been used to mark out targets.

During the conflict, doctors in Lebanon reported treating civilians who appeared to have been hit by the shells, which leave their victims with severe chemical wounds that can be fatal.

The reports led the Lebanese President, Emile Lahoud, to accuse Israel of breaching the Geneva Convention, which bans the use of white phosphorous both as an incendiary weapon against civilians and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas. Yesterday, reports in the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz revealed that Mr. Edery confirmed to parliament last week that it had used the bombs during its operations this summer.

As noted here during the conflict, the Israeli government also transgressed Geneva Conventions in its use of cluster bombs in civilian populations. The result?

The admission of the use of the bomb comes as a 12-year-old boy was killed in Lebanon after ordnance from a cluster bomb exploded in his village in Halta, in southern Lebanon.

Rami Ali Hussein Shibly was picking olives in his village when the bomb exploded, injuring his younger brother, according to security officials.

His death brings the total number of recorded victims of cluster bomb explosions in Lebanon since the conflict began to 21, with another 100 injured, according to the United Nations.

Israel has been accused by both the UN and human rights groups of firing up to four million cluster bombs into Lebanon during its war with Hizbollah, which ended in a UN-brokered ceasefire on 14 August.

UN de-mining experts say up to one million of the cluster bombs failed to explode immediately and continue to threaten civilians, especially children who can mistake the ordnance for batteries or other small objects.

Earlier this month, the British charity Landmine Action warned that the number of civilians falling victim to cluster bombs would rise as people from southern Lebanon return to their homes following the ceasefire.

So much for the Israeli government's claim that everything was being done to prevent civilian casualties. For all the damage revealed on some mainstream news channels - predominantly consisting of bombed-out bloodless infrastructure, with the occasional shot of body bags or the extremely rare image of a wounded Lebanese child lying in a hospital bed - the situation was (and remains) much worse than we were told.

Yet there are no follow-up reports on Lebanon in our mainstream media. No "Where Is Lebanon Now?" It's just forgotten. The overwhelming majority of deaths in the conflict were Lebanese civilians. Over 1,500 dead. Several thousand wounded. And a rebuilding process that will take years.

Also conveniently dropped down the memory hole is George W. Bush's culpability in the conflict. It was his purported holding out for a "sustained cease-fire" - an unconscionable position - that directly led to so much needless death and destruction. Surely, he is an accomplice to Israel's transgressions of international law. Knowing that bodies of innocent civilians were piling up every hour, every day, "Stay the Course" Bush didn't lift a finger to put an end to this tragedy. Literally. He failed to contact Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for the duration of the conflict, which is not only another example of Bush's blithe disregard for human life but a distillation of his supreme ineptitude as a leader. Additionally, Bush's fingerprints are all over one more failed military strategy. A point, if reported as such, would be another chink in the armor of his war presidency and in the Republicans' claim to national security dominance over Democrats. The majority of Israeli bombs killed Lebanese civilians, not members of Hamas. The majority of Israelis killed were soldiers, not civilians. Because of this, Hamas leader Hassan Nasrallah was largely seen as the victor in the Muslim world and, arguably, in the rest of the world as well. Once again, this emboldens another terrorist group (which emboldens all terrorist groups) and puts their targets in increased jeopardy.

Heckuva job, Georgie.

And in case you're wondering why bombs made with white phosphorus (which, incidentally, were used by U.S. soldiers in Fallujah) are outlawed under Geneva Conventions, this should give you an idea:

Killed by Israeli air raids, the Lebanese dead are charred in a way local doctors, who have lived through years of civil war and Israeli occupation, say they have not seen before.

Bachir Cham, a Belgian-Lebanese doctor at the Southern Medical Centre in Sidon, received eight bodies after an Israeli air raid on nearby Rmeili which he said exhibited such wounds.

He has taken 24 samples from the bodies to test what killed them. He believes it is a chemical.

Cham said the bodies of some victims were "black as shoes, so they are definitely using chemical weapons. They are all black but their hair and skin is intact so they are not really burnt. It is something else."

"If you burnt someone with petrol their hair would burn and their skin would burn down to the bone. The Israelis are 100 per cent using chemical weapons."

...

"We are seeing abnormal burns, different from wars we've seen in the past. The corpses of these victims are shrinking to half their normal size. You think it is the corpse of a child at first but it turns out to be a grown man," said Raed Salman Zeinedine, director of Tyre Government Hospital.

"We've never seen anything like it but what the causes are I don't want to speculate. We have no scientific answer."

Now we do.

Israel admits phosphorous bombs used in Lebanon
By Helen McCormack
The Independent U.K.

Armies of Compassion: Rove's November "Surprise"