Thursday, January 25, 2007

NEW POLITICO.COM SERVICE AVAILABLE





POLITICO STAFF


John Harris is the editor-in-chief of The Politico and Politico.com. He launches this endeavor after 21 years on the staff of The Washington Post, where he served most recently as the national political editor. He is the best-selling author of The Survivor, an acclaimed biography about former President Bill Clinton, and co-wrote The Way to Win, a behind-the-scenes guide to presidential campaigns that The New York Times called "smart, savvy ? revealing." A native of Rochester, N.Y., Harris is a graduate of Carleton College and lives with his wife, Ann O'Hanlon, and their three children in Alexandria, Va.


Jim VandeHei, is the executive editor of Politico. He launches this effort after four years as a national political reporter for The Washington Post, where he covered the White House, Congress and the 2004 presidential campaign. He has more than a decade of experience covering Congress and the administration as a reporter for both The Wall Street Journal and Roll Call newspaper. A Wisconsin native, he is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and lives with his wife, Autumn, and their two children in Falls Church, Va.


Bruce Drake, managing editor of Politico, is a former vice president of news for National Public Radio (NPR) and has worked in print and broadcast journalism for more than 35 years. During his time as managing editor and then vice president, NPR News won 17 Peabody Awards, 13 Columbia University DuPont Awards, nine Robert F. Kennedy Awards and more than doubled its audience to 26 million listeners a week. Drake was credited with helping to transform NPR into a primary news provider. He also wrote its Code of Ethics and Practices. Prior to joining NPR, Drake was a reporter and editor for the New York Daily News for 20 years, most of it in Washington. He covered Congress, national politics and was White House correspondent during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, before becoming news editor in the Daily News Washington Bureau.


Martin Tolchin, senior publisher and editor of Politico, is an author and journalist who capped 40 years at The New York Times by founding The Hill, a newspaper published four times a week that reports on the activities of Congress. Tolchin's many journalism awards include the Everett M. Dirksen Award for Distinguished Reporting of Congress. He and his wife Susan are the authors of seven books, including To the Victor: Political Patronage from the Clubhouse to the White House, which has been cited in four decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.


Dan Kunitz is associate publisher and managing editor of Politico.com. He joins The Politico team after eight years as co-founder and chief operating officer of Irides, a leading web hosting services provider. Prior to Irides, Dan worked in news, marketing, and web development at several broadcast stations, and has been involved in the launch of three television channels. Dan is from Rochester, N.Y., has a B.A. in English from Wesleyan University in Middletown, CT., and now lives with his wife and son in Alexandria, Va.


STAFF WRITERS


Mike Allen is the chief political correspondent for Politico. He comes to us from Time magazine where he was their White House correspondent. Prior to that, Allen spent six years at The Washington Post, where he covered President Bush's first term, Capitol Hill, campaign finance, and the Bush, Gore and Bradley campaigns of 2000. Before turning to national politics, he covered schools and local governments in rural counties outside Fredericksburg, Va., for The Free Lance-Star, then wrote about Doug Wilder, Oliver North, Chuck Robb and the Bobbitts for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where he nurtured police sources on overnight ride-alongs through housing projects.


Allen also covered Mayor Giuliani, the Connecticut statehouse and the wacky rich of Greenwich for The New York Times. Before moving to The Times, he did stints in the Richmond and Alexandria bureaus of The Washington Post. Allen grew up in Orange County, Calif., and has a B.A. from Washington and Lee University, where he majored in politics and journalism.


Roger Simon is the chief political columnist for Politico, an award-winning journalist and a New York Times best-selling author. Known for his sharp insight, humor and engaging writing style, Simon will write a regular column on presidential politics and help anchor coverage of the 2008 presidential election. Simon has been a columnist for The Chicago Sun-Times and The Baltimore Sun and was syndicated nationally by Creators Syndicate.


He is the author of four books, three on presidential politics and one a collection of columns. He has won more than three dozen first-place awards and is the only person to win the American Society of Newspaper Editors Distinguished Writing Award for Commentary twice. In 2005 he won the National Headliner Award for his coverage of the 2004 presidential election.


John Bresnahan, is the capitol bureau chief of Politico. He comes to us after over a decade covering Congress, most recently as a reporter and editor for Roll Call. He is one of the most well-sourced journalists on the characters, history and procedures of Congress.


Josephine Hearn is a congressional reporter for Politico. She comes to us from The Hill newspaper where she covered House Democrats and lobbying. Prior to that, she worked in television as a desk assistant at NBC News and later as associate producer to two PBS Frontline documentaries, one of which won a 2003 Emmy. A native of Philadelphia, Hearn holds a bachelor's degree in computer science.


Christian Lowe is a senior staff writer covering defense and national security for Politico. Previously, Lowe worked for five years as a staff writer and senior writer with the Military Times newspapers and Defense News, where he deployed several times to Afghanistan and Iraq to cover military operations. He was a field producer for a local Emmy-nominated documentary in 2005 called "Class 186: The Making of a Marine Corps Officer" and won the Associated Press Managing Editors Association?s top prize for investigative journalism with his expose on defective body armor fielded to U.S. troops in Iraq. Before joining the Military Times papers, Lowe was the aviation correspondent for Defense Week, a Washington, D.C.-based industry publication.


Anne Schroeder is Politico's gossip columnist. She joined the publication after successfully launching Capitol File, Washington's premiere luxury magazine. Prior to Capitol File, Schroeder worked at The Washington Post, where she wrote boldfaced "Names & Faces" and assisted its flagship "Reliable Source" column with Richard Leiby and his predecessor Lloyd Grove. Before joining The Washington Post, Schroeder oversaw the "Green Room" at CNN's Washington bureau.


Patrick O'Connor is a congressional reporter for Politico. Before joining us, he covered the final two years of the Republican majority in the House for The Hill newspaper in Washington, D.C., as well as competitive House and Senate races for that same publication during the 2004 cycle. He received a master's in science from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism in 2004 and was an original staff member on ESPN's "Pardon the Interruption." A native of Seattle, Wash., he graduated from Northwestern University in 1999.


Ben Smith, staff writer for Politico, comes to us from The New York Daily News, where he covered New York?s political scene. He created New York City's three top political blogs: The Daily Politics at The New York Daily News; The New York Observer's Politicker; and Room Eight, an independent group blog. He has worked in the past for The Indianapolis Star, The Wall Street Journal Europe, and The New York Sun, and writes occasionally about New York politics for The New Republic. Smith will continue to write from New York.


Jonathan Martin is a staff writer for Politico, covering the 2008 presidential campaign. He comes to us from National Review, where he wrote about politics for the magazine and the website. Prior to that, Martin worked for The Hotline covering topics ranging from gubernatorial contests to congressional leadership battles. A Virginian, Martin is a graduate of Hampden-Sydney College.


Kenneth P. Vogel, a senior staff writer with Politico, has covered politics and government for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Wash., The Times Leader in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., The Center for Public Integrity and The Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Conn. He has won awards from the Association of Capitol Reporters and Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists and Investigative Reporters and Editors. He is a native of Philadelphia and a graduate of the University of Wisconsin.


Helena Andrews is a staff writer for Politico. She worked in publishing in New York, Chicago and now Washington. Helena comes to Politico from The New York Times Washington bureau where she wrote stories on the Beltway reality series "The Hill" and Chapelletheory.com. Helena received her Masters degree from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University and her bachelors from Columbia University in the City of New York. Helena is originally from Los Angeles.


Jean Chemnick, a staff writer, joined Politico from Congressional Quarterly, where she was a committees reporter. She holds a Masters in Journalism from Boston University and has interned for Roll Call, The Worcester Telegram and Gazette and the Boston NPR affiliate, WBUR. Before embarking on a career in journalism, she worked in theater.
Jeff Patch, a staff writer with Politico, previously worked at Roll Call through the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism. Before coming to Washington, Patch had been a correspondent for two years for The Des Moines Register, covering politics and police issues in their Iowa City bureau and Des Moines office. He graduated from the University of Iowa with a B.A. in political science and journalism and is a Dubuque, Iowa native.


Daniel W. Reilly, a staff writer, comes to Politico from the Washington Bureau of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Prior to that, he worked as a reporter for The Trinidad Guardian newspaper on the island of Trinidad and Tobago . He holds a B.A. from The University of Wisconsin and a M.A. from The George Washington University. He was a Fulbright Scholar on the island of Trinidad in 2003-04.


Carrie Sheffield, a staff writer, covered healthcare policy for The Hill newspaper prior to joining Politico. She was previously a staff reporter for the Deseret Morning News and covered the Utah legislature for The Daily Herald in Provo. Sheffield has written for The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and interned with columnist Robert Novak. A 2006 Phillips Foundation Fellow, she is a graduate of Brigham Young University and a fellow of the German-American Fulbright Commission.


Amy Doolittle, a staff writer, covered D.C. politics for The Washington Times prior to joining Politico. Doolittle has written for the Flint Journal and Voice of the Hill and interned at The Register Pajaronian in Watsonville, Calif. A graduate of Thomas Edison State College and the World Journalism Institute, she is a 2006 winner of the Lilly Scholarship for Journalists.


Ryan Grim, a staff writer with Politico, previously wrote for Washington City Paper. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, Slate, Salon, Rolling Stone, and a number of other papers and magazines. He is writing a book on drug policy and politics to be published in the fall of 2008 by John Wiley & Sons. He studied philosophy at St. Mary's College of Maryland and public policy at the University of Maryland 's School of Public Affairs.


Aoife McCarthy, a staff writer, joins Politico after two years as poll editor at The Hotline. She expanded The Hotline's poll coverage and wrote the weekly "Margin for Error" column, which added depth and context to the polling numbers. After The Hotline, McCarthy spent the 2006 cycle working on the Diageo/Hotline poll from the other side as a pollster for Financial Dynamics, where she served as assistant vice president before returning to journalism.


Matt Wuerker is Politico's editorial cartoonist and caricaturist. His cartoons and illustrations are syndicated nationally and have appeared in publications ranging from The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times to The Smithsonian and The Nation. Two collections of his cartoons have been published as books: Standing Tall in Deep Doo Doo, and Meanwhile in Other News.


EDITORS


David Mark is Politico's politics editor. David is the author of Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning , published by Rowman & Littlefield in 2006. Mark previously served as editor-in-chief of Campaigns & Elections magazine. He has been a reporter for Congressional Quarterly, and the Associated Press in Tallahassee, Fla. An oft-quoted authority on political topics in all media forms, Mark has appeared on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," "The O'Reilly Factor" and numerous other programs. He has written for The Washington Post and other prominent publications.


Andrew Glass is a senior editor with Politico. Andy has been a Washington-based journalist since 1962. In his prior journalism career, he served as Washington bureau chief of Cox Newspapers for more than 20 years. Following a fellowship at Harvard's JFK School of Politics in 2001, Andy joined The Hill as the paper's senior editor and, subsequently, as its managing editor, while also contributing a weekly column. From 1980 through 2001, he wrote a column on national and foreign affairs for the Cox Newspapers, which was syndicated by the New York Times News Service for potential use by some 650 newspapers worldwide.


Barbara E. Martinez, assistant editor for Politico, recently returned to Washington after almost three years working in Europe's capital, Brussels. While there, she guided bicycle tours in the French countryside, worked as a freelance editor, and supported the competition practice of Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP. Martinez cut her journalistic teeth as a writer and editor for the Harvard Crimson before joining the Washington Post, where she worked as Lloyd Grove's assistant on the "Reliable Source" column, covered the town of Leesburg for the Metro section, and learned the business of the news business as a budget analyst.


Dana Wells, assistant editor at Politico, is formerly of The Hill newspaper. She has worked as a copy-editor on several publications. As a graduate of the Denver Publishing Institute, she also holds a Juris Doctorate degree from Suffolk University Law School in Boston, Mass., and a B.A. in English Literature/Writing from Denison University in Granville, Ohio.
Katie Gilchrist, proofreader for Politico, has previously worked as a reporter, editorial assistant and proofreader for various publications including the Drug GMP Report and Tax Notes. She received her B.S. in English from Radford University.


Samantha Slater joined Politico as an editorial assistant. Prior to that, she worked as an editorial assistant at Congressional Quarterly and for a non-profit organization, teaching teens about political activism. A native of New York, she spent two summers interning in the press office of Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Samantha received a B.A. in American Studies and Journalism from Brandeis University.


Ta'Mara Blake is an administrative assistant with Politico. A native of Northern Virginia, she completed her education in Human Resource Management at Strayer University. Prior to joining the publication, Blake spent seven years as a family support worker with Head Start in Washington D.C. She also has an extensive record of community service in the metropolitan area.


MEDIA


Kim Kingsley, media director for Politico, comes to us from The Washington Post, where she spent more than two years as the deputy director of Television and Radio Projects. Prior to working at The Post, Kim was as an editor for WTOP News Radio in Washington, D.C. While at WTOP, Kim helped produce an award-winning series on the dangers of ecstasy. She has a B.A. from The Pennsylvania State University, where she majored in broadcast journalism and African studies. A native of Scranton, Pa., Kim spent her final semester of college studying abroad in Ghana. She lives with her husband, Mike, in Washington, D.C.


PRODUCTION


Frank Meyers is Politico's production manager. He joined the publication after working as production manager at The Hill newspaper for the past five years.


Kathryn Ray, senior production assistant with Politico, was previously a graphic design intern at the Institute for Justice in Arlington. She graduated from George Mason University with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Art and Visual Technology with a concentration in Graphic Design.


Katie Lancos, a production assistant with Politico, has freelanced as a print and Web designer with clients such as Design Symphony, Rannoch Corporation, Fountain Programming and the Metropolitan Child Development Center. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in graphic design.


PHOTOGRAPHY


Patrick Ryan is Politico's photography editor. An award winning photojournalist and lifelong Washingtonian, his images have appeared in outlets including The Washington Post and The New York Times. He was Photo Editor and Staff Photographer at The Hill newspaper for 6 years before coming to Politico.


John Shinkle, a staff photographer with Politico, majored in photojournalism at the Corcoran College of Art and Design and graduated with his B.F.A. in the spring of 2005. Shinkle has interned at The Hill newspaper and The Washington Examiner. His work has also appeared in DC Pulse and Vapors magazines. John is a former Air Force brat originally from Dayton, Ohio and has lived all over the U.S. He has been in the D.C. area for twelve years.


ADVERTISING


Kenny Day, Politico's associate publisher and ad director, brings over a decade of publishing experience to the table. Getting his start at Roll Call as an account executive, he was quickly promoted through the ranks. He completed his career at Roll Call as director of marketing, communications and strategy. He served as head of commerce for Brussels-based European Voice, Roll Call's EU sister newspaper, heading up their sales and business development as well as marketing strategy and communications. In addition to opinion-leader publishing, Day also served as ad director for the launch of Regardie's Power magazine. Most recently he was publisher of Washington Flyer magazine, where he oversaw and initiated all business interactions for the magazine.


Jack Smith joins Politico as a national advertising account executive after spending the previous two years with Roll Call's advertising department, most recently as a national account executive. He graduated with a B.S. from West Chester University, where he studied Political Science and International Relations.


Kelley Kennedy-Lapping, national account executive for Politico, previously worked at Gannett's Military Times Media Group. She is the former associate publisher of Racing Milestones and previously worked with Rodale and Advance Communications' Parade Magazine and Newhouse Newspapers. She is a graduate of Northwestern University.


Erin Matticola, a national account executive with Politico, has worked in the D.C. sales force with Yahoo!, and drove recruitment ad sales within the high-tech corridor in San Francisco. Prior to her advertising sales experience, she taught sixth grade in Fairfax County, Va.


Carolyn Landes, classifieds manager, comes to Politico from iCore Networks, a VoIP firm in McLean. She recently graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Va., where she earned a B.A. degree in Communications and English.


Walt Houseknecht, traffic manager, joins Politico after spending the previous two years in Roll Call's advertising department, most recently as traffic manager. He graduated with a B.A. from the University of Virginia, where he studied American Politics and American History.


Elizabeth Kelley, marketing and sales coordinator, joined Politico from Washington Life magazine, where she most recently worked as an advertising and distribution manager. Prior to that, she managed operations and oversaw marketing and promotions at O'Connor Equestrian, an international athletic facility.


Sheila Burke is Politico's retail sales manager. She brings 12 years of advertising sales experience, including Roll Call, Capital Style, Home & Design magazine, Profile Magazine and Annapolis Magazine.


Steve Valentini is Politico?s circulation director. He brings with him an extensive background in circulation and distribution. This background includes 10 years with the Washington Post, starting as a carrier/driver and ending as a distributor. After the Post, Valentini worked in circulation management at the Washington Times; The Wall Street Journal; The Herald-Mail (Hagerstown, MD); and most recently as a Field Operations Manager for Investor?s Business Daily.


IN THE NEWS




Reuters: The reporters who went up a Hill but came down a dot-comhttp://blogs.reuters.com/2006/12/13/the-reporters-who-went-up-a-hill-but-came-down-a-dot-com/


WJLA: Top Political Reporters Leave Post for Allbritton Political Venturehttp://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1106/375613.html


New York Observer: A New D.C. Paper Poaches, Encroaches Cross-Platformshttp://www.observer.com/20061127/20061127_Michael_Calderone_media_offtherecord.asp

Washington Business Journal: Allbritton political news venture nabs Time correspondent, othershttp://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2006/12/11/daily34.html
Editor & Publisher: 'Wash Post' Loses Harris and VandeHei -- To Allbrittonhttp://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003410176


Editor & Publisher: Roger Simon, Mike Allen Joining Vandehei and Harris in New 'Politico' Venturehttp://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003496068


PRESSthink: A Collection of Journalists Who Have Distinctive Signatureshttp://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/12/06/harris_q_a.html

Huffington Post: John Harris and Jim VandeHei to Pull Back the Curtain on Official Washingtonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/extra-extra-john-harri_b_34826.html


National Review Media Blog: More Reporters Join Politicohttp://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDA2M2JmODI3ZWZhYmU4MTUzMGE1OTUyZmQ1Mjc1ODQ=

Advance-Titan: Oshkosh alumnus takes next stephttp://www.advancetitan.com/story.asp?issue=11326&story=5666


Poynter: Washington Post loses political journalists Harris, VandeHeihttp://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=114203


FishbowlDC: VandeHei, Harris Leave Washington Post to Start New, Multimedia News Venturehttp://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/the_revolving_door....


The New York Sun: Mr. Smith Goes To Washingtonhttp://www.nysun.com/article/46026





Fishbowl DC: New York Times Takes Another Look At Politicohttp://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/


Romanesko: Can The Politico Website Succeed with Such a Narrow Focus?http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45


U.S. News & World Report ?Washington Whipspers?: ?Passing the Bong? to Remake Politicshttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/070107/15whisplead.htm
International Herald Tribune: For Journalists: It?s Not Politics as Usualhttp://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/08/business/washington.php


Posted by Ed, Dickau at 8:00 PM 0

Posted by ed. dickau at 10:40 AM 0 comments  

Saturday, January 13, 2007

IMPEACHMENT IS TOO GOOD FOR BUSH; SURGE RESISTANCE NEWS



IMPEACHMENT IS TOO GOOD FOR GEORGE W. BUSH.

GUILTY OF ALMOST EVERY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: HIGH CRIMES, MISDEMEANORS, ABUSE OF POWER, MISFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE IN OFFICE, DOMESTIC SPYING, ILLEGAL WIRE TAPPING, CONSTITUTIONSAL DEFIANCE, LYING, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, TO BEGIN WITH.

HE IS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES, “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” AS DEFINED BY ALL INTERNATIONAL LAW, HE IS AN UTTER FAILURE AND A CRIMINAL BY EVERY DEFINITION.

THIS MAN HAS BROKEN EVERY SECTARIAN/CIVIL LAW OF THIS NATION AND THIS WORLD ,THAT APPLIES TO ACTS OF LEADERSHIP. HE HAS PRESENTED TO THE ENTIRE WORLD A TOTAL HYPOCRITICAL LIP SERVICE TO THE PRECEPTS OF CHRISTIANITY. THIS MAN WILL BE JUDGED BY HISTORY AS SINGLE GREATEST FAILURE AS AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

THE BLOOD OF MILLIONS YET TO BE SLAUGHTERED IN HIS FOOTSTEPS WILL STAIN HIS HANDS AND MEMORY SO LONG AS THERE IS A PLANET AN SOMEONE LEFT TO READ OUR HISTORY.

THE SITUATION AND THE OUTCOME.

THE WAR IN IRAQ SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. IT DID HAPPEN AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS HANDLED IT IN THE MOST OVER CONFIDENT AND INCOMPETENT MANNER IMAGINABLE. THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ENOUGH TROOPS FOR THE TASK AND THEIR EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES HAVE NOT BEEN UP TO THE DEMAND. THE WORD INTELLIGENCE IS A JOKE WITH THE BUSH FOLKS.

THE WAR IS LOST, AND THERE IS NEITHER THE WILL IN THIS NATION OR THE WORLD TO CONTINUE THE CONFLICT. WE WILL WITHDRAW AND THE AFTERMATH WILL BE HIDEOUS. THE REGION WILL COLLAPSE INTO A MAJOR CONFLAGRATION IN A FEW YEARS WHEN THE WORLD WILL BE FORCED TO MOBILIZE IN A WORLD WAR III EFFORT. THE 1300 YEAR WAR IS COMING TO THE FORE AS THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS GIVEN VINDICATION, VALIDATION AND LEGITIMACY TO THOSE FUNDAMENTALIST EXTREMISTS WHO HOLD ALL “INFIDELS” ENEMIES. THEIR DOOR HAS BEEN UNLOCKED.

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WILL SUPPORT NO MORE. SEVENTY (70%) OF THE IRAQUIS WANT US TO LEAVE AND 61% APPROVE ATTACKS ON THE AMERICANS ON “THEIR” SOIL. THE DISASTER THAT WILL FOLLOW WITHDRAWAL WILL BE WORST THAN THE RULE OF SADDAM…BUT WHEN WILL THAT HAPPEN.

OUR DEPARTURE WILL BE DELAYED AS LONG AS POSSIBLE BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WITH THE HOPE OF KEEPING THE ISSUE ALIVE INTO THE 2008 CAMPAIGN CYCLE. THE CARNAGE THAT WILL INEVITABLE COME TO PASS WILL HAPPEN ON SOMEONE ELSE’S WATCH AND EVERY ATTEMPT WILL BE MADE TO LAY IT THE FEET OF THAT PRESIDENT, THAT ADMINISTRATION, NOT BUSH!

THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THAT NONSENSE AND SEE SOME FORM OF JUSTICE APPLIED TO THIS ADMINISTRATION IS FOR THIS NATION TO RISE UP TO THE POINT WHERE CONGRESS WILL BR COMFORTABLE WITH PUTTING A STOP TO THE WAR, BRINGING GEORGE BUSH TO ACCOUNTABILITY BY IMPEACHMENT, AND TO JUSTICE IN WAR CRIMES PROCEEDINGS.

WE NEED THIS TO HAPPEN; THE WORLD NEEDS THIS TO HAPPEN, AND WE NEED THE TIME TO CLEAR OUR HEADS AND TO PREPARE FOR THE GREATER CONFLICT THAT WILL LIE AHEAD.


AMERICA REACTS TO BUSH MOVE……

"PULL EVERY AMERICAN - CANCEL ESCALATION; "IRAQ IS ARABIC FOR VIETNAM."

EVERYWHERE YOU TURN THE REACTION IS NEGATIVE!

SURVEY FINDS 70% OPPOSE PLAN TO SEND MORE TROOPS
By NANCY BENACAssociated Press
Jan. 12, 2007, 1:20AM

Time

NEWS ABOUT IRAQ

Iraq plan ignites a scathing debate

Gates wants to boost U.S. forces by 92,000

Survey finds 70% oppose plan to send more troops

Bush plan proves to be a tough sell to Congress

Military wives react to new Iraq plan

Americans greet Bush plan with skepticism

Gates, Rice respond to troop surge plan

Iraqis skeptical about U.S. troop increase

America reacts to Bush speech


AMERICA AT WAR

Latest from Iraq

Afghanistan updates

Homeland security news

U.S. military deaths

Profiles of fallen soldiers
Latest war video reports

Talk about war

3,000: An analysis of U.S. military deaths in Iraq

U.S. military interventions since '50s

HOW IT WAS DONE
The AP-Ipsos telephone survey of 1,002 adults was conducted Monday through Wednesday night, when the president made his speech calling for an increase in troops. News had already surfaced before the polling period that Bush planned to boost U.S. forces in Iraq. The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

WASHINGTON — Seventy percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq, according to a new poll that provides a devastatingly blunt response to President Bush's plan to bolster military forces there.

The Associated Press-Ipsos poll found widespread disagreement with the Bush administration over its proposed solution, and growing skepticism that the United States made the right decision in going to war in the first place.

Just as 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq, a like number don't think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there, the poll suggested. When asked to name the most important problem facing the U.S., 38 percent of those polled volunteered war, up significantly from 24 percent three months ago.

Iraq is a drag on Bush's overall job approval rating, too. That rating is at 32 percent in the latest survey, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling.

Congress Reacts Angrily To Bush's Iraq Strategy: The Hartford Courant, CT.

January 12, 2007 WASHINGTON -- A day after President Bush implored the nation to support his new Iraq "surge" strategy, his top aides met a storm of criticism Thursday from congressional Democrats and Republicans.
In tense exchanges during three congressional hearings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other officials confronted crumbling support for the administration's policy and a growing risk that lawmakers might try to impose limits or conditions on the unpopular mission.


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Columbus — A day after President George Bush outlined his new plan for Iraq, he came to Fort Benning, an Army training base, to sell it to the soldiers who will have to implement it.


Bush's comments were met with relatively polite but restrained applause on several occasions.

Protesters, supporters await Bush

As a town that is a gatepost for the Army Infantry prepared for a visit from President Bush, many residents appeared to back the president's plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops into the Iraq war, but dozens of protesters outside the base decried it.

The president is due to have lunch here Thursday at Fort Benning, meet with troops and watch an Infantry demonstration, all the while selling the plan for more troop deployments that he announced Wednesday night on national television announced.

Today, on Victory Drive just outside the Army base, about 50 protesters made their opinion clear. Many waved signs, beat drums and shouted at passing motorists who occasionally honked their support.

One protester, dressed as the devil, adorned with horns, a red cape billowing in the breeze and a rubber Bush mask, held a sign that said: "Bush: Lord of the Lies," a reference to the popular William Golding novel.

Gloria Tatum, 63, of Decatur, said she traveled to Columbus because Bush "lied us into war. He was wrong then and he's wrong now."

"We voted [in November] and the vote was that [the war in Iraq] was a mistake."

Her sign read: "Bush, Lord of the Lies."


TEAR DOWN U.S.-IRAN WALLBy AMIR FAROKHIPublished on: 12/22/06

In the wake of the Iraq Study Group report, the United States is scrambling to develop a revised approach in the Middle East. Everything in the region, we have painfully learned, is interconnected: from past colonialism to present anger, from religion to politics, from the precarious comforts of Tel Aviv to the political winds in Baghdad.

America's policy in the Middle East must be as complex as the region itself. One of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report and of newly appointed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is to approach Iran diplomatically. President Bush should heed this advice.

Resuming diplomatic relations with Iran, even if only limited to direct dialogue, is not only necessary to moderating Iran's ambitions, but it is also a requisite for regional stability in the Middle East.

The United States' self-imposed policy of ignoring Iran is a policy that has been ineffective for 27 years and is not in our national interests. The result is an Iran that instinctively reacts counter to U.S. interests and is immune to U.S. efforts to limit its regional ambitions. To begin to influence Iran, we must acknowledge Iran's significant geopolitical influence along with our own limitations in the region. Whether we like it or not, we need Iran and whether Iran likes it or not, it could benefit greatly from growing closer to the United States. Somewhere, there is a grand bargain to be struck.

The calculated bluster of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is intended, in part, to stir Iranians' deep-seated nationalism. So long as the United States ignores Iran and moves clumsily in the Middle East, Ahmadinejad will rely on anti-Western sentiment by accusing the United States and others of meddling in Iran's affairs.

To neutralize Iran's anxieties and to make any discussion productive, we must change the manner with which we treat Iran. Iran is wary of the United States for many reasons, not the least of which is America's presence to Iran's east and west.

KETV7. OMAHA, NEBRASKA

Nebraska's Congressional Delegation Reacts To Bush Speech

Nebraska Leaders Question Extra Troops

Nebraska Sens. Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson said Wednesday that they don't agree with President George W. Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.
In prepared remarks sent after Bush outlined his new strategy, Hagel said: "This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq."

Nelson said, "I am trying to maintain an open mind, however, I cannot ignore the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and our senior military leaders who have all but unanimously said that sending more troops to Iraq is not the answer."


WLWT5, CINCINNATI, OHIO

Local Military Families React To Bush Speech

Majority Of Americans Oppose Iraq War, Escalation


CINCINNATI -- President George W. Bush asked an increasingly skeptical American public Wednesday for more time and more troops to help make his Iraq war plan work.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose sending more U.S. forces to Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll that serves as a strong repudiation of President Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops.

Military members and their families will be asked to shoulder much of the burden for the president’s tactical shift, and their reactions to the president’s call for increased troop strength in Iraq are mixed.

“It is not an answer,” said Eddie Leidenheimer, a veteran with a nephew serving in Iraq who watched the president’s speech at the Norwood American Legion post.

“I think we need to get out, period,” he added.

CAPITAL NEWS9

Soldier reacts to the President's new planUpdated: 1/11/2007 8:37 AMBy: Jola Szubielski
Sgt. Dan McCoy has been home from Iraq now for several months, but the memories of his time spent serving in Baghdad are fresh. And as he listens to the President's new plan for the war in Iraq, he says it sounds all too familiar.

"It's the same strategy, we're adding more troops for the third time, it's the third time we're going back and its just not working, we need to let this government stand on their own feet, pull back a little bit and see where we're at," he said.

But President Bush says now is not the time to back away, instead he's calling for 20,000 more troops, something McCoy says is frustrating for the troops and for himself, his unit is being mobilized in May leaving his future in limbo.

McCoy said, "It's going to be for the safety of our troops there and if it's going to help them I firmly believe in sending them. But if we're using the troops to embed ourselves more into this country, and on the streets, on the street corners, absolutely not. It's just putting more American's at risk and it’s just not worth it."

the President's new plan
One person watching the President's speech with a vested interest was Albany County legislator Dan McCoy. He recently returned home from Iraq, and says he was left disappointed by the address. Our Jola Szubielski watched the speech with him and spoke to him afterwards.



Analysis: Bush's new Iraq plan a gamble


THE BUSH GAMBLE

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States would be bullish in letting the Iraqis know where and when they're failing. "If we see them falling short, we will make sure they know that and how strongly we feel about it," he said.

Justifying the addition of 21,500 U.S. troops, Bush also acknowledged the extent to which he needs al-Maliki and the other way around.

Stepping back now "would force a collapse of the Iraqi government" and could mean U.S. troops staying even longer, he said.

Selling the strategy to openly skeptical Republicans and Democrats on Thursday, Secretary of State
SEARCH
Per the Chicago Tribune, Reid "said he knows of at least 12 Republican senators who oppose Bush's new plan."

But the Wall Street Journal adds: "White House officials calculate that Democrats will be stymied by practical problems, legislative maneuvering and internal divisions in their attempt to prevent the administration from sending 21,500 more soldiers -- and more money -- to Iraq.” More: "White House officials downplayed the possibility of Congress blocking troop escalation, noting that the administration has enough money to send most of the additional 'surge' forces to Iraq. That means any Democratic move to limit funding would effectively impact money used for sustaining troops already in the field."

House Lawmakers React to Bush Iraq Plan
By Dan Robinson Capitol Hill11 January 2007

Robinson report - Download 382k Listen to Robinson report

As Bush administration and U.S. military officials faced skeptical lawmakers on Capitol Hill, some of the strongest criticisms of the president's military surge in Iraq came from some new members of Congress.

While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the president's plan before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, four newly elected congressmen, all Democrats, appeared before television cameras and microphones to express disappointment in the plan.

Patrick Murphy, is an Iraq war veteran who defeated a Republican candidate in his home district in Pennsylvania.

"The reality on the ground is this: By putting more troops into Iraq, [it] does not do anything to find a solution to what is needed there, and that is for the Iraqis come off the sidelines, and fight for their country, fight for their government, protect their neighborhoods, not to rely on the American forces," he said.

Chris Carney, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, opposes sending additional U.S. troops, and questions whether the Iraqi government can meet the commitments President Bush says he received.

"To put so much credibility in the Maliki regime, I think is dangerous," he said. "This is a regime that has proven that it cannot withstand the political pressures of the realities in Iraq, and we must start finding people we can work with in that country to represent our interests."

As part of the Democratic majority in the House, the lawmakers say they are prepared to ask tough questions so Congress can carry out proper oversight regarding Iraq.

Tim Walz is a Democrat from Minnesota:

"The questions are going to be asked," he said. "This is a different Congress. The questions that the American people asked and the message they sent on November 7 are being echoed here today, and we will continue to do so."

But not all say they are prepared to support aggressive proposals, such as one by Senator Edward Kennedy to require Congress to approve any increase in troop numbers for Iraq.

Congressman Murphy says he is not yet persuaded such a step would be wise, and remains hopeful the president will, as he puts it, understand the fervor of the new Congress and Americans.

Joe Sestak, another Pennsylvania Democrat, believes the United States must set a date for withdrawing U.S. forces.

"That date is the only remaining leverage we have over the Shi'ites, the Kurds, the Sunnis, the parties in that country, to accept that they must make a political decision in what is not a military issue," he said. "This is a political civil war."

The views contrasted with Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, who asserts the United States needs to do whatever is needed to ensure success:

"Victory here is essential, and whether that is more troops [or] less troops, we need the number of troops necessary," he noted.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General Peter Pace, Chairman of the [military] Joint Chiefs of Staff, tried to reassure worried House lawmakers:

"This military plan, properly part of new political emphasis and new economic plus-up can provide the success we are looking for," he said.

The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, sought assurances from General Pace and Secretary Gates, the Bush administration would re-visit its strategy if the Iraqi government does not keep to its commitments.

The War Within Sen. McCain

Vocal Supporter of Bush Is Increasingly Critical, Isolated
By Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff WritersSaturday, January 13, 2007; Page A01

KNOW WHEN TO FOLD 'EM: New York Daily News
Bush's surge reshuffles tactics when U.S. really needs to deal itself a new hand
21,500 more troops to fix my mistakes, Bush admits to failures,but insists increase is critical to winning war.


BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK and KENNETH R. BAZINETDAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU



WAR-WEARY AMERICANS WEIGH NEW BUSH PLAN

By ERIN McCLAM AP National Writer © 2007 The Associated Press
SOURCES AP VIDEOS:
Video Report 1

Video Report 2

Video Report 3

Video Report 4

— Wearied by war, Americans paused Wednesday to listen to President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, responding with frustration, puzzlement and, in some cases, cautious hope.

In a prime-time address to the nation, the president said he would boost the U.S. presence in Iraq to more than 150,000 troops, steeled the country for more violence and said he had made a mistake by not ordering more troops there last year.

At a diner called Miss Katie's in downtown Milwaukee, office manager Dave Berndt said Bush seemed to be "apologizing for what's going on so far, and almost apologizing in advance for what's going on afterwards."

Nearby, bartender Joe Sardino was more blunt: "I think this is a Band-Aid on a large wound."

Going head-to-head with Democrats who have called for an end to the war, Bush said an American pullback now would shatter the Iraqi government and lead to "mass killings on an unimaginable scale."

Still, the president was speaking to a nation that has in large part soured on the war, which this spring will enter its fifth year and which last month cost its 3,000th American life.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll in December put approval of Bush's handling of the war at 27 percent, a record low, and a majority of voters interviewed in exit polls during the midterm elections said they favored pulling some or all troops from Iraq.

Even among Americans who applauded Bush's decision to bolster the American military presence in Iraq, there were questions about why the reinforcements were only being sent now.

"I'd love to know what took him so long to come to this realization," said Wayne Muller, who watched the speech from his home in Raleigh, N.C., and whose son, Cpl. Danny Muller, serves in Iraq's volatile Anbar province.

"We either have to get the troops in there to get the job done or bring them home," Muller said.

In other quarters, there was clear frustration.

Brad Rosen, a 24-year-old Harvard Law student who watched the speech among a crowd of about 100 at Cambridge Common bar, seized on Bush's assertion that 80 percent of the sectarian violence in Iraq is concentrated near Baghdad.

"Where was that information a year ago, when I would have said increase the troops?" Rosen asked. "But now it seems like a defense posture."

Bush called the increase in American force a change in course in the Iraq war, and said failure in Iraq would a be "a disaster for the United States." His speech appeared to stir hope in some that the war might turn for the better.

A handful of veterans gathered at an American Legion post in Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood, to watch the speech. There, 59-year-old Dave Washko, who called himself "just an old soldier," said he supported Bush.

"I'm just praying it works," he said.

Another veteran there, George Payntar, who served in the Vietnam war, added: "If we pull out, they'll be here. I am afraid if we pull out now, we would lose the progress we made and the Iraqi people would suffer greatly."

At the Atlanta airport, a few dozen Army recruits were gathered, waiting to travel to Fort Benning to start boot camp on Thursday. They seemed weary of political talk and eager for action.

"There's been a lot of talk about strategies," said Jesse Weber, 21, of Richland Center, Wis. He said he hoped Americans who do not support the war would still "support the soldiers," and said he thought Bush "has been kind of slow making his decisions."

The steady slide in public support for the war has been remarkable: Even in Utah, a Bush electoral stronghold, a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll found less than half of respondents supported the Bush war plan.

"I was pleased that he didn't try to be overly optimistic," said Bart Barker, 52, who watched the Bush address from his home in Draper. "The way he talked about deploying added troops does give me a little hope."

Barbara Early, who noted she had read the Iraq Study Group report _ which called the situation in Iraq deteriorating and suggested America begin a troop pullback by next year _ was less optimistic.

"It just seems unsupported by all the expert opinion, against the prevailing wisdom of everyone, except people in his administration," Early said at the San Francisco sports bar where she watched the speech.

At the upscale restaurant and bar Novecento, in Miami's financial district, patrons seemed more interested in the television screens showing Cirque Du Soleil than the president's speech.

But many who did watch it said they were cautiously hopeful.

"I have no idea if this is going to work," said Richard Earl, a 33-year-old money manager. "But he's got a plan. Let's hope it does."

Associated Press writers Mike Baker in Raleigh, Giovanna Dell'Orto in Atlanta, Emily Fredrix in Milwaukee, Brandie M. Jefferson in Cambridge, Mass., Scott Lindlaw in San Francisco, Brock Vergakis in Salt Lake City, Elizabeth White in Killeen, Texas, and Laura Wides-Munoz in Miami contributed to this report.

IRAQ PLAN DRAWS CRITICISM, MOCKERY ON HILL

CBS/AP) President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq ran into a wall of criticism on Capitol Hill on Thursday as administration officials drew confrontational and sometimes mocking challenges from both Democrats and Republicans.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in response that the administration might abandon the increase if the Iraqi government doesn't do its part, but he provided no timetable. "I think most of us, in our minds, are thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years," he told the House Armed Services Committee.
Bush and top members of his national security team sought to rally support for the troop buildup a day after he unveiled his plan for turning around a conflict that has lasted nearly four years and cost the lives of more than 3,000 American military personnel.
Instead, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice found themselves embroiled in the first pitched exchanges in a battle that is likely to dominate Congress for months or longer and is already shaping the 2008 presidential election.


IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY ANSWER, BUT WE MUST STOP THE ESCALATION RIGHT NOW!

BUSH ISN'T LISTENING

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Americans voted their disapproval of the President's Iraq strategy, yet he has escalated the conflict. In this VideoNation report, Katrina vanden Heuvel explains that Bush is recklessly using American lives to salvage a delusional national policy and set the stage for wider war. Congress and the American people must rein him in.
WATCH KATRINA’S VIDEO HERE:

In the lead editorial this week, Nation editors argue that ratcheting up pressure on Congress to block Bush's Iraq escalation plan is the first step toward bringing the troops home

TAKE ACTION NOW

After his party's dramatic defeat on November 7, George W. Bush seemed, however briefly, to recognize that his Iraq policy wasn't working. He fired Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, promised to take the Iraq Study Group's report "very seriously" and pledged to work with the new Congress. But his speech January 10 announcing an escalation of the US occupation of Iraq confirms that Bush's "new way forward" is just more of the same, and that his contemptuous disregard of the will of the people and their elected representatives is unchanged.

The President's escalation, set to begin January 15, is the first test of the new Congress. The American people voted to get our troops out of Iraq, not dug deeper in, and it is up to Congress to see that it is done. Democratic leaders announced before Bush's speech that they would offer House and Senate resolutions opposing the escalation. And even though that escalation may be under way by the time Congress acts, and even though the resolution is nonbinding, it can still serve as a highly public rebuke to an imperial White House.

Some Democrats, most notably Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden, are peddling the notion that "as a practical matter, there is no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop.'" But in fact, the opposite is true. A report by the Center for American Progress makes clear that past Congresses have curtailed or ended military deployments. The report notes, for example, that in 1983 the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act required the President to return to seek authorization if he wished to expand the size of the US contingent in Lebanon. Congress has also acted to cut war funding. In 1970, the report notes, the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law "prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of US troops to Cambodia."

Peace groups and members of Congress are crafting creative ideas to counter a Commander-in-Chief who misled us into a catastrophic conflict and now proposes to escalate the war in Iraq.

As the President prepares to escalate (aka "surge") the war in Iraq, the new Democratic Congress and peace activists across the nation are searching for the most effective ways to respond to the continuing Madness of King George. Here is a look at what some legislators, former and current military personnel, and peace groups are doing to end a war that has stretched the military to the breaking point, and sacrificed more than three thousand American men and women to what columnist Paul Krugman calls "the quagmire of the vanities."

•Representative John Murtha has already taken a strong stand in announcing that he will oppose funding for any escalation as Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Murtha told Arianna Huffington that "he wants to ‘fence the funding,' denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq…."

Murtha's stance is critical since the rightwing will wrongly spin (as they have post-Vietnam) that opposition to funding a war is tantamount to not supporting the troops. How best to counter the rightwing political blame game will require hard work and courage in the coming weeks and months.

•In addition to Murtha's stance, Representatives such as James McGovern and Dennis Kucinich--now a Presidential candidate--are also focused on using the power of the purse to end this debacle. Kucinich called for the withholding of funds for future troop deployments after the people spoke against the war so clearly on Election Day, and McGovern introduced the End the War in Iraq Act last session "to prohibit the use of funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq." While many--especially the still delusional neocons--will try to paint this legislation as anti-military, it isn't. It calls for using those funds "for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq."

Although Rep. McGovern's bill only had 19 co-sponsors (including Rep. Kucinich) at the end of Congress' last session, more Democrats may be moved to take a stand when the next supplemental funding bill comes up as early as February – especially as they hear from their constituents and peace activists.

•In the Senate, according to the New York Times, Senator Edward Kennedy will introduce legislation on Tuesday that would require the President to obtain new authorization from Congress prior to sending any more troops to Iraq. Kennedy urged a quick vote, saying, "The importance of this legislation is that it will apply now before we could get the escalation." He cited Congressional intervention in both Vietnam and Lebanon in calling for his colleagues to take action to stop any escalation in Iraq. One clear ally of Sen. Kennedy's is Sen. Russ Feingold – who, along with Sen. John Kerry, introduced legislation during the last session of Congress for a withdrawal to be completed by July of this year. Feingold told The Times: "My concern now is that too many Democrats are going to want to play it safe on this issue and not take the strong stand that American people demand."

•Appeal for Redress – Navy Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, spokesman for the extraordinary movement of active military personnel, reservists, and officers (including "a handful of colonels") seeking withdrawal--says that getting Congressional representatives to explicitly take a stand against the occupation is even more pressing than any debate on funding. Hutto believes that the debate must focus on shifting the policy of this government from one of occupation to "withdrawing all troops and bases from Iraq." Any vote to fund the current policy--whether increasing troop levels, or training Iraqi soldiers, or even funding an Iraqi jobs program with no end to the war in sight--supports the principle of occupation, and to Hutto and his fellow-servicemen and women that is simply unacceptable.

"The first priority needs to be to get the leadership in DC to commit to the principle of withdrawal," Hutto says. "Then we can talk about funding needs."

•Sen. George McGovern, who recently met with the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) advises that he would continue funding only in the context of moving towards a withdrawal. His book–-co-authored with former history professor and State Department Middle East expert, William R. Polk--outlines a step-by-step, six-month plan for withdrawal to be completed on or before June 30.

McGovern will present his proposal at the CPC's Capitol Hill Public Forum on Iraq this Friday, January 12 at 9:30 A.M. (345 Cannon House Office Building… and word is that new Iraq legislation will come out of this forum). He stresses the need for a massive reconstruction effort led by Iraqis and largely funded by the United States (at a far cheaper cost than maintaining the occupation); a provision for financing law enforcement contingents from other Muslim or Arab countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, Indonesia; and reparations to Iraqi civilians for loss of life and property as the British are doing.

"I think [this] is more politically acceptable than simply cutting off funding," McGovern said. "Although, if that's the only thing that will work after trying this more deliberative effort then I would support a funding cutoff. We have to terminate that war in the near term."

•Win Without War--a coalition of national organizations advocating for a foreign policy based on international cooperation and enforceable international law – is preparing to join forces with Rep. Murtha in calling for any supplemental to be used only towards a safe and orderly withdrawal. National Director and former Congressman Tom Andrews says, "In response to George Bush's call to escalate the war in Iraq, the message of our campaign will be as simple, direct and as straightforward as possible: NO!" The America Says NO! campaign will utilize local actions, signs, buttons, bumper stickers, flyers, and ads in newspapers and online to communicate this message.

•MoveOn is launching an immediate campaign to oppose Bush's escalation and a long-term campaign to force Congress to end the war. It is organizing rallies across the nation, advertising, call-in days, online petitions, and more. Already over 260,000 members have signed MoveOn's petition opposing escalation and made over 8,000 calls to Congress. MoveOn has endorsed the Kennedy bill and – according to Washington Director Tom Matzzie--its message to Democratic leaders is: "Figure it out. Get out of Iraq. All options should be on the table."

•Military Families Speak Out--with a membership of over 3,000 military families--is urging citizens to send their Congressional representatives a postcard--"Support Our Troops: De-fund the War!"--to bring the troops home now. And Iraq Veterans Against the War--with members in 41 states, Washington, DC, Canada, and on numerous bases overseas (including Iraq)--is also calling for an end to funding, as well as reparations to Iraqis and full benefits (including mental health) for returning servicemen and women.

•Peace Action--with over 28 state affiliates and 100 local chapters across the country--will call on Congress to vote against the supplemental funding bill. But it will also explore with its Congressional allies how the money might be reduced or conditioned. In a statement, Executive Director Kevin Martin said "The question now is, how will the Democratic Congress respond? While they sound skeptical of [Bush's] plan right now, if they refuse to curtail funds in any way and allow Bush to do what he wants, they will become his accomplices in this disastrous war. And the American people will not accept that."

•United for Peace and Justice--a coalition of more than 1300 local and national groups--is focused on demonstrating wide antiwar sentiment with March on Washington, DC on January 27 as well as a Congressional Advocacy Day on January 29. UFPJ hopes to have at least one participant from each of the 435 Congressional districts and will "remind Congress why they were elected and demand that they act immediately to end the occupation of Iraq."

While there is still some uncertainty about how to fulfill the mandate of the November election to end this war, peace groups and members of Congress are crafting creative ideas and resolutions to counter a Commander-in-Chief who misled us into a catastrophic conflict and would now recklessly waste more lives and resources in pursuit of his ideological mission and the salvaging of his legacy. It is time to focus on seeking a political resolution, energetic regional diplomacy to contain the civil war, and funding to address this growing humanitarian catastrophe.

And, finally, to find a safe and honorable way home for our troops.
The SenatorS Who Will Not Surge?
THESE TWO CAN STOP THEIR LITTLE DANCE RIGHT NOW
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIFORNIA, AND SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID, D-NEVADA, are trying to figure out how to respond to the to the expected presidential proposal for to surge the United States deeper into the quagmire that is Iraq.

BUT THE MAN WHO, BY VIRTUE OF HIS LONG SERVICE IN THE SENATE AND HIS MASTERY OF THAT CHAMBER'S POLITICS AND PROCEDURES, IS RECOGNIZED AND RESPECTED BY SAVVY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AS THE ESSENTIAL MEMBER OF THE NEW CONGRESS, IS NOT CONFUSED.

SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY, D-MASSACHUSETTS, IS TODAY INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO UNIQUIVOCALLY "PROHIBIT THE USE OF FUNDS FOR AN ESCALATION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN IRAQ ABOVE THE NUMBERS EXISTING AS OF JANUARY 9, 2007."

Kennedy voted against authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq and he has been a consistent critic of the war. But this targeted piece of legislation specifically addresses the "surge" being proposed by the president.

Even more importantly, Kennedy's bill reasserts the role of Congress in a time of war. The Constitution allows the president to serve as commander-in-chief and affords him reasonable war-making powers in that role. But it reserves for Congress the power of the purse, and the founders were clear in their believe that the House and Senate should use that power to constrain a president who is waging war without reason or sound strategies.

The Congress has frequently used the power of the purse to control presidential war-making. Kennedy points to examples from the Vietnam era, but there are also examples from just the past quarter century of the Congress specifically embracing troops caps in Lebanon, in the European NATO countries and in Colombia. Indeed, as the Center for American Progress notes in a detailed new report, "Congressional Limitations and Requirements for Military Deployments and Funding," the Congress has a rich record of stepping in to prevent presidents from expanding U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts.

Kennedy, who came to the Senate in 1963 recognizes that record, and he embraces its central theme: That the Constitutionally-mandated system of checks and balances requires Congress to be in the thick of decision making with regard to wars and their escalation.

Kennedy's specific message is summed up in the title of the speech the senator is delivinng today at the National Press Club: "Escalation is Not the Answer: Time for Congress to Insist on Real Change in Iraq"

Says Kennedy, "It seems to me that we are at a time of a major escalation into a civil war, that's what the proposal of a surge is really about. This president is going to escalate the American presence and escalate the whole Iraqi war. This is a major mistake and a major blunder. If there's one thing that the election was about last fall was sending a very clear message to Congress and to the president that the American people want accountability. They want a change in direction on Iraq, they want accountability, and they want people to stand up and be counted."

Will other members of the Senate stand up and be counted? And will members of the House do the same?

Pelosi is clearly toying with strategies to challenge the proposed escalation of the war. She's said that Congress must be a part of the discussion about the president's "surge" proposal, while the Senate's Reid remains troublingly vague.

Ultimately, it is Kennedy who has proposed the clearest challenge to the administration. And senators, especially those who recognize the futility of expanding this war, need to join him in saying no to the surge.

"I think it's to try to hold policy makers accountable," Kennedy explained in a discussion with The New York Times regarding his legislation. "The president is the commander in chief. This is George Bush's war. But we have some responsibility in holding him accountable and holding accountable the people that want to continue the war in the way that it is being undertaken at the present time. The American people have expressed a different view and we need accountability."

Here are Kennedy's remarks regarding his bill:

The American people sent a clear message in November that we must change course in Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops, not escalate their presence. The way to start is by acting on the President's new plan. An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake. It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq. We must act to prevent it.

Today I am introducing legislation to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. My bill will say that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation, unless and until Congress approves the President's plan.

My proposal will not diminish our support for the forces we already have in Iraq. We will continue to do everything we can to make sure they have all the support they truly need. Even more important, we will continue to do all we can to bring them safely home. The best immediate way to support our troops is by refusing to inject more and more of them into the cauldron of a civil war that can be resolved only by the people and government of Iraq.

This bill will give all Americans – from Maine to Florida to California to Alaska and Hawaii – an opportunity to hold the President accountable for his actions. The President's speech must be the beginning – not the end – of a new national discussion of our policy in Iraq. Congress must have a genuine debate over the wisdom of the President's plan. Let us hear the arguments for it and against it. Then let us vote on it in the light of day. Let the American people hear – yes or no – where their elected representatives stand on one of the greatest challenges of our time.

Until now, a rubber stamp Republican Congress has refused to hold the White House accountable on Iraq. But the November election has dramatically changed all that. Over the past two years, Democrats reached for their roots as true members of our Party. We listened to the hopes and dreams of everyday Americans. We rejected the politics of fear and division. We embraced a vision of hope and shared purpose. And the American people voted for change.

Many of us felt the authorization to go to war was a grave mistake at the time. I've said that my vote against the war in Iraq is the best vote I've cast in my 44 years in the United States Senate.

But no matter what any of us thought then, the Iraq War resolution is obviously obsolete today. It authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today, Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance.

The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress. President Bush should not be permitted to escalate the war further, and send an even larger number of our troops into harm's way, without a clear and specific new authorization from Congress.

Our history makes clear that a new escalation in our forces will not advance our national security. It will not move Iraq toward self-government, and it will needlessly endanger our troops by injecting more of them into the middle of a civil war.

... Comparisons from history resonate painfully in today's debate on Iraq. In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy. The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each new escalation in Vietnam would be the last. Instead, each one led only to the next.

There was no military solution to that war. But we kept trying to find one anyway. In the end, 58,000 Americans died in the search for it.

Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.

As with Vietnam, the only rational solution to the crisis is political, not military. Injecting more troops into a civil war is not the answer. Our men and women in uniform cannot force the Iraqi people to reconcile their differences. The President may deny the plain truth. But the truth speaks loudly and tragically. Congress must no longer follow him deeper into the quagmire in Iraq.

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Impeachment-Founders-Cure-Royalism/dp/1595581405

Media Misleading Americans By Using ‘Surge’ To Describe Bush Policy

Research compiled by ThinkProgress shows that when “surge” was first adopted by the mainstream media in November 2006, the term was specifically defined as a “temporary,” “short-term” increase in U.S. forces. In fact, we now know that the Bush administration and the most prominent advocates of escalation all reject a short-term increase in U.S. forces. Rather, they advocate a long-term increase of forces lasting at least 18 months.

The media, in other words, has continued to use the term “surge” even though its definition has fundamentally changed.

The choice of words is not an academic point. A CBS poll released Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a “short-term troop increase,” the number jumps to 45 percent approval (48 percent disapproval).

Every time the media repeats the word “surge,” they are helping to mislead the American people about the long-term escalation being proposed. Reporters and news organizations have a responsibility to stop using the term to describe President Bush’s policy.

NEGATIVE REACTION TO BUSH SURGE PLAN PART 1 SEARCH

NEGATIVE REACTION TO BUSH SURGE PLAN PART 2 SEARCH

BUSH PLANS FOR IRAN NEXT?





Posted by ed. dickau at 5:22 PM 0 comments  

Thursday, January 11, 2007

THE CARTER CONTROVERSY

















Blind New York Times Continues Attacks on Jimmy Carter
by Patrick O’Connor
January 08, 2007

Printer Friendly Version EMail Article to a Friend

SOMETIMES DEALING WITH THE TRUTH IS DIFFICULT FOR AMERICANS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES THAT IS NOT SIMPLY BLACK AND WHITE. RIGHT OR WRONG JIMMY HAS OPENED THE FORUM FOR DEBATE.

CARTER CONTROVERSY GOOGLE NEWS SEARCH

The assault on Jimmy Carter and his new book which criticizes Israeli policy, Palestine Peace not Apartheid, has been led by many of the usual, uncritical, knee-jerk Israel supporters - Alan Dershowitz, Martin Peretz and Abraham Foxman. However, the campaign to discredit Carter among more thoughtful, less partisan Americans is led by powerful, mainstream institutions like The New York Times, that are respected for their seeming objectivity and balance.

In the January 7, 2007 Sunday Book Review, after the dust settled from weeks of frenzied coverage by other major media outlets, the Times made its bid to pronounce the “final word” on Carter’s book. In the review Jews, Arabs and Jimmy Carter,[1]Times Deputy Foreign Editor Ethan Bronner rejected the more hysterical claims that Carter is anti-Semitic, but simultaneously dismissed Carter’s book as “strange” and “a distortion,” and described Carter, the only US President to have successfully mediated an Arab-Israeli peace agreement, as suffering from “tone deafness about Israel and Jews”.

If Carter is “tone deaf,” Bronner’s review provides yet more evidence that The New York Times is willfully blind to Palestinians. New research detailed below shows that Times’ news reports from Israel/Palestine, which Bronner supervises, privilege the Israeli narrative of terrorism, while marginalizing the Palestinian narratives of occupation and denial of rights. Bronner himself has quoted eight times more words from Israelis than from Palestinians in 18 articles he wrote for the Times since mid-2000.

The Times paved the way for Bronner’s review with two news articles[2]and a blog posting.[3]While allowing Carter space to defend himself, the articles and blog posting focused on attacks on Carter by eight public figures, and included defenses by just two people. As usual, no Palestinians were permitted to comment. The Times’ blog posting noted that the controversy was unfolding during a holocaust denial conference in Iran, hinting at an unspecified link with Carter’s book.

In his review, Bronner constructs a deceptive sense of balance by rejecting both sides’ more controversial positions. He writes that Carter’s use of “apartheid with its false echo of the racist policies of the old South Africa” constitutes “overstatement” that “hardly adds up to anti-Semitism.”

Bronner derides Carter’s book as characterized by “misrepresentations”, and having “a Rip Van Winkle feel to it”, while simultaneously acknowledging that “Carter rightly accuses Menachem Begin … of deception regarding” settlement expansion, and that “his chapter on the endless humiliation of daily life for the Palestinians under Israeli occupation paints a devastating and largely accurate picture.”

Yet Bronner still minimizes Palestinians’ “endless humiliations” by devoting just two sentences to them, and he writes, with no sign of irony, “that Carter is right that insufficient attention is being paid, but perhaps that is because his picture feels like yesterday's story, especially since Israel's departures from southern Lebanon and Gaza have not stopped anti-Israel violence from those areas.”

Most of the world recognized that Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza did not end Israel’s occupation or control of Palestinian lives there, nor significantly lessen daily hardships. Bronner avoids addressing Carter’s central argument, that Israel's refusal to fully withdraw from the Occupied Territories is the main obstacle to a negotiated settlement.

Palestinians would be justifiably outraged to learn that their continued daily hardships are “yesterday’s story.” Mirroring elements of the arguments of Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League,[4]Bronner seems to see “today’s story” as radical Islam and terrorism, as he laments that Carter’s book on Israel/Palestine fails to also cover the Iranian revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban’s rise, Al Qaeda and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

One can only imagine the hysterics that would have arisen at the Times had Carter not ignored the right of return of Palestinian refugees and Israel's discrimination against its Palestinian citizens.

Bronner has written 18 articles on Israel and Palestine for the Times since July 30, 2000. In them he quoted 1226 words from Israelis, and just 145 words from Palestinians.[5]For example, in the Week in Review on July 30, 2000, after the failure of Camp David, and two months before the outbreak of the 2nd Palestinian intifada which has continued for the last six and half years, Bronner counseled that “no explosion… occurred, nor is chaos expected any time soon.” The peace process’ “positive direction in the long term is clear.”[6] Bronner quoted 228 words from Israelis and 67 words from a Palestinian in that less than prescient analysis.

During the same period, Amira Hass, an Israeli reporter for Ha’aretz Daily living in Ramallah, was comparing the situation to that before the outbreak of the first intifada, warning against the assumption that “confrontation is not feasible”, and arguing that “Rebellion is not planned from above, and the moment could come when the people who were not afraid of IDF rifles will not be put off by those wielded by Palestinian police.”[7]

In 2003, Bronner wrote a glowing review of The Case for Israel by pro-Israel hatchetman Alan Dershowitz.[8]Assessing Dershowitz’s book, alongside a book by Yaacov Lozowick, Bronner called them “intelligent polemics.” He offered not a single criticism of Dershowitz, saying his book made many “well-argued points,” and Dershowitz “knows how to construct an argument.” He described Dershowitz as a “liberal” “on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.” In contrast, Professor Norman Finkelstein devoted an entire book, Beyond Chutzpah, to documenting the errors, fabrications and outright plagiarism in The Case for Israel. “Liberal” Dershowitz defends torture, and suggested Israel destroy entire Palestinian villages in retaliation for suicide bombings.

It’s no surprise then that the news reporting Bronner oversees leans heavily on the Israeli narrative. Searches with Lexis-Nexis Academic identify 935 articles published between December 1, 2004 and November 30, 2006 by the Times correspondents based in Israel/Palestine, Bronner’s area of oversight.[9]Of those, 341 articles (37%) mentioned the word terrorism, 259 (28%) mentioned terrorist, 183 mentioned suicide bombing (20%), and 359 (38%) mentioned Palestinian attack(s).[10]In contrast, only 156 of the 935 articles (17%) included the dominant Palestinian experience of occupation, and 115 articles (12%) mentioned the word occupied. This overwhelming focus on terrorism, Palestinian attacks and suicide bombings occurred during a two-year period when Israel tightened its siege on Palestinians, sinking Palestinians further into poverty, and Israelis killed 903 Palestinians, approximately half civilians, while Palestinians killed 81 Israelis, 60 of whom were civilians, according to the Israeli human right organization B’Tselem.[11]Palestinians committed eight suicide attacks that resulted in 34 of the 81 Israeli fatalities.[12]

Israeli abuses of Palestinian rights are even harder to find than Israeli occupation in New York Times news reports. Over two years, the Times used the word illegal (as defined by international law or Israeli law) in just 55 articles to describe Israeli offenses against Palestinians[13](5.9%). International law relating to Israel/Palestine was mentioned in only 14[14]of 935 articles (1.5%),[15]the Geneva Conventions in one article (0.1%),[16]collective punishment in 12 articles (1.3%), right of return for Palestinian refugees in 14 articles (1.5%), discrimination against Palestinians in four articles[17](0.4%), and apartheid in three articles (0.4%). Though settlement(s) were mentioned in 318 articles (34%), as noted above, they were infrequently described as “illegal.” Settlement expansion and settlement growth appeared in just six articles each[18](0.6%). Even Palestinian poverty and unemployment were mentioned in only 13 and 18 articles respectively.[19]

In short, the entire Palestinian experience is marginalized in New York Times news reports from Israel/Palestine. The words and concepts that Palestinians continually invoke to describe their lives, including apartheid, are almost never found in the Times. Jimmy Carter claims that Americans are poorly informed about Israel/Palestine in part because “the major newspapers and magazines” exercise “self-restraint” in their reporting. Therefore, anything other than denial of Carter’s thesis by the Times would constitute an admission of its own failure.

Despite a facade of balance and moderate positions, Ethan Bonner’s review of Jimmy Carter’s book represents yet another example of the mainstream US media’s willful blindness on Israel/Palestine. Bronner wields the Times’ power in a bid to restrict acceptable discourse on Israel/Palestine by hiding the Palestinian experience from the American public.

Fortunately, the US public seems not to be buying it. Instead, they’re buying Carter’s “strange” book, now number five on the Times bestseller list for hardcover nonfiction.


Patrick O’Connor is a New York City-based activist with Palestine Media Watch (www.pmwatch.org) and the International Solidarity Movement (www.palsolidarity.org).
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/books/review/Bronner.t.html?em&ex=1168232400&en=f236d4df09fdf9c8&ei=5087%0A

[2] Carter View Of Israeli' Apartheid' Stirs Furor, Julie Bosman, The New York Times, December 14, 2006, and Former Aide Parts With Carter Over Book, Brenda Goodman and Julie Bosman, The New York Times, December 6, 2006.

[3] Carter’s Rhetoric of Apartheid, Tom Zeller, December 13, 2006, http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/carters-rhetoric-of-apartheid/

[4] Judging a Book by Its Cover and Its Content, Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League, November 13, 2006, http://www.adl.org/israel/carter_book_review.asp

[5] It could be asserted that Bronner is unfairly penalized for reviewing four books by Israelis and one book by a Palestinian. However, eliminating those five reviews worsens his ratio, yielding 1045 words quoted from Israelis, and 97 words quoted from Palestinians.

[6] Camp David Myth-Busting; Nothing Succeeds Like a Failure, Ethan Bronner, Week in Review, The New York Times, July 30, 2000.

[7] Reporting from Ramallah, Amira Hass, September 20, 2000 dispatch, pgs. 64-65, Semiotext(e)

[8] The New New Historians, Ethan Bronner, The Book Review, The New York Times, November 9, 2003

[9] 380 by Steven Erlanger, 438 by Greg Myre, 51 by Dina Kraft, 29 by Ian Fisher, 26 by Craig Smith, four by John Kifner and four by James Bennet.

[10] 499 articles mention attack(s). A review of each one revealed that 359 mentioned Palestinian attack(s), 136 mentioned Israeli attack(s), and 73 mentioned Hezbollah attack(s).

[11] http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

[12] January 18, 2005 (1), February 25, 2005 (5), July 12, 2005 (5), October 26, 2005 (5), December 5, 2005 (5), December 29, 2005 (1), March 30, 2006 (4), and April 17, 2006 (7).

[13] 112 articles mentioned the word illegal, but only 55 were about Israeli actions related to Palestinians.

[14] International law appeared in a total of 21 articles, 14 of which were related to Israel/Palestine. The rest were related to Israel and Lebanon.

[15] For more examples of this problem see International Law not Fit to Print, The New York Times and Israel/Palestine, Patrick O’Connor and Ahmed Bouzid, May 1, 2005, http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0501-28.htm

[16] The Geneva Conventions were mentioned in a total of three articles, but one article was about Israel and Lebanon and a second about Sudanese refugees in Israel.

[17] The word discrimination appeared in seven articles, but only four articles related to Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

[18] These six articles included also the variants, expansion of settlements, and growth of settlements.

[19] Impoverished was mentioned in 18 articles, and unemployed in 12 articles.


International Law Not Fit to Print: The New York Times and Israel/Palestine
by Ahmed Bouzid and Patrick O'Connor

More than any other newspaper, the New York Times influences how policymakers, journalists and the general public understand important issues. Unfortunately, Times' news reporters continue to misrepresent the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by failing to acknowledge the broad international consensus that Israel's settlements and West Bank Wall violate international law.

Times' reporters instead present Palestinian and Israeli views using a 'he said, she said' formula, without an appropriate framework to help readers evaluate competing claims.

These shortcomings came to a head in an April 19 piece by Steven Erlanger, The New York Times' correspondent to the region, titled 'Israel, on Its Own, Is Shaping the Borders of the West Bank'.

The article's thesis that, 'the likely impact of the provisional new border on Palestinian life is, perhaps surprisingly, smaller than generally assumed,' was essentially based on the flawed analysis of the Wall's impact by David Makovsky.

Mr. Makovsky, a former Editor of the right-wing Jerusalem Post, is now a Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a spinoff from the right-wing American Israeli Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC). On top of paraphrasing Mr. Makovsky's arguments, Mr. Erlanger quotes 144 words from Mr. Makovsky, versus only 23 words from Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.

'The land between the green line and the barrier is 8 percent of the West Bank,' Mr. Erlanger reported. He happily added that, 'Eight percent is half of what the figure was last summer,' ignoring the reality that Palestinians don't accept Israeli annexation of any of their land.

Mr. Erlanger wrote that the revised Wall 'route has sharply reduced the number of Palestinians caught inside the barrier: fewer than 10,000 of the two million Palestinians in the West Bank.' He then added caveats - 10,000 does not include Wall impacts on 195,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem, the Wall has cut off most of the Palestinians' best agricultural land, and the Israeli army can completely seal off Palestinian towns like Qalqilya that the Wall nearly surrounds. Though Mr. Erlanger never admits this, these caveats add hundreds of thousands of Palestinians negatively impacted by the Wall, making Mr. Makovsky's figure of 10,000 Palestinians totally misleading.

Worse, Mr. Erlanger notes three times that Israeli annexation of 8% of the West Bank is close to the 5% that President Bill Clinton supposedly proposed in 2000. The emphasis on annexing 5% - 8% of the West Bank serves Mr. Makovsky's partisan political agenda - lowering the bar for expectations of what constitutes a just resolution.

However, there is no justification for 'lowering the bar' when international law requires that Israel withdraw from the entire West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, analysts like Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolition have explained repeatedly that Israeli annexation of a strategic 5% of the West Bank will leave Israel in control of the West Bank, and prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

What is crucial to note in all of this is that there is a widespread consensus that international law provides a viable framework to address most elements of the conflict. The Times, however, studiously and systematically avoids mentioning that international law -- even the 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world's highest legal body -- deems the construction of the Wall on Palestinian land illegal.
After Mr. Erlanger's article, Michael Brown of Partners for Peace suggested to the Times that it note in articles that UN Security Council resolutions declare all Israeli settlements illegal. Daniel Okrent, the Times Public Editor responded in his April 24, 2005 column 'The Hottest Button: How the Times Covers Israel/Palestine,' by quoting the Times Deputy Foreign Editor Ethan Bronner who said, 'We view ourselves as neutral and unbound by such judgments.

We cite them, but we do not live by them.'

Bronner's response is very telling and quite typical of the types of responses the mainstream media gives its critics when it has no answer. Instead of answering Mr. Brown's point that the Times systematically ignores UN resolutions and international law, Mr. Bronner accuses Mr. Brown of wanting the Times to 'live by them,' and then proceeds to vehemently assert that the Times will not bend to doing that!

On a positive note, Mr. Okrent left the door open to improving the Times coverage of Israel/Palestine. In response to the observation that a Ramallah-based correspondent might see the conflict differently from those based in West Jerusalem, Okrent wrote, 'The Times ought to give it a try.'

Readers should hold the Times to Okrent's proposal.

Ahmed Bouzid is President of Palestine Media Watch --

http://www.pmwatch.org/

Posted by ed. dickau at 7:25 PM 0 comments  

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

blogger templates | Make Money Online