Death By Privatization

On January 2nd, yet another American soldier died in Iraq. But Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth, a highly-decorated Green Beret, didn't die from a roadside bomb or an al Queda sniper. He was killed by his shower.

More accurately, Sgt. Maseth's killer was privatization. That's the out-of control policy of turning over essential military support systems to a sprawling, unregulated network of for-profit corporations and letting them get away again and again with shoddy - even deadly - work.

Sgt. Maseth was safely inside his Army base in Baghdad when he reached for the shower faucet. Electricity instantly shot through the pipes, through the water itself, and through his entire body, electrocuting him. His mother, stunned, pressed the Army for details, but got only hemming and hawing at first, then she got a lie: she was told that her son had a "small appliance" with him in the shower. She knew better and kept pushing, finally learning that the facility's water pump had not been properly grounded.

Worse, Army documents reveal that Halliburton, under contract to inspect such systems, had found serious electrical problems in this facility nearly a year before Sgt. Maseth's last shower. Why wasn't it fixed? Because Halliburton's contract did not cover "fixing potential hazards," instead requiring only that it fix equipment already malfunctioning. Meanwhile, the Army itself should have known about this death trap, but under the Pentagon's convoluted privatized system, the danger that Halliburton found was not red-flagged and was never reviewed by a "qualified government employee."

At least a dozen of our soldiers have been killed by improper grounding of electrical equipment, but Halliburton coldly claims that it is not part of the Army and has no contractual obligation to prevent the electrocution of American Troops.
(c) 2008 Jim Hightower's latest book, "If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates," is available in a fully revised and updated paperback edition.

Saving Seeds - Part 2
By Mel Bartholomew

WASTEFUL SINGLE ROW GARDENING

SAVING SEEDS - PART 1 described all the reasons why I think it's not worth while to grow plants in order to save their seeds. Another thing wrong with old-fashioned, inefficient, single row gardening, which most people don't realize until it is too late, is that when you plant all those seeds at the same time in one long single row they all come to harvest at the same time. Wonder of wonders - I wonder if anyone ever thought of that as something home gardeners don't want. Farmers, yes, home gardeners, no. But no one ever told us that's what we would get. Who wants 20 heads of lettuce all within one week ? As it turns out, everything that we have been taught all our lives about single-row gardening, I began to think, was terribly wasteful and almost to the point of being really dumb. Why do we plant everything in a row and then space the row three feet apart? Why do we plant a whole packet of seeds and then thin 95% of them out?

Why do we plant so much all at once and then it all comes to harvest all at once, when for a home garden we just want a little bit but continually through the whole garden season? Why do we roto-till and fertilize and amend the soil over the entire garden area when most of it was in 3-foot wide aisles which grew nothing but a tremendous crop of weeds, especially when we watered the entire garden area? How dumb is that ?

STOP SENDING SEEDS

In our humanitarian projects and in working with other nonprofit organizations, we found the first request from both the recipients overseas and the giving organization in this country was, "We need seeds, we need lots of seeds." Everyone wants seeds and I've seen huge boxes of seeds being sent overseas and I know they are all going to be wasted by being poured out in a single-row system. I thought, "What a terrible waste and what a terrible disappointment." It stands to reason that if they use all their seeds at once, then they are going to just want more and if the donating organization can't keep shipping pounds and pounds of seeds to them, their program isn't going to be successful.

STOP TEACHING SINGLE ROW GARDENING

Now, at first, you might say, "Well, that's a very good reason then, for them to start growing their own seed." But, I say NO , go back to reasons one and two why I think it is a waste of time. It is much better to teach them an efficient, condensed planting system like Square Foot Gardening that teaches conservation, rather than stick to an antiquated, inefficient system that merely promotes and breeds more inefficiency and waste in every single step of the way.

START USING SQUARE FOOT METHOD

Since Square Foot Gardening takes only 20% of the space of a conventional garden, it also takes less than 5% of the seeds and that is because we don't waste seeds or plant too many, only to have to thin them out. If you recall the SFG planting directions, you will remember that we just put a pinch of seeds. See Rule No. 8 of the SFG Ten Basics and that is plant only a pinch (2 or 3 seeds) in each hole or each space. Now if you start with a packet of 1,000 lettuce seeds and there are four plants per square foot and you put in 2-3 seeds in each hole, you've only planted 10 seeds for each square foot of lettuce. Divide 1,000 by 10 and you have enough seeds in that one packet for 100 people. And that is just one slender thin packet of seeds. Compare that with the 100 people each planting an entire packet of seeds - 100 packets vs. 1 packet - that's efficiency. That's Square Foot Gardening !

ELIMINATE THINNING

Remember also that when the seeds do sprout, rather than conventional single-row thinning, which actually disturbs the one plant you want to save, we take a pair of scissors and snip off the extra one or two sprouts leaving one plant per space. That also reduces the risk of the gardener wanting to transplant the extras and put one here and one there and pretty soon they are too crowded. Square Foot Gardening allows every plant to be in the exact perfect spacing for that variety.

TRY CONSERVATION

In summary then, I would say in order to conserve your seeds, plant wisely and efficiently and there will be enough seeds for every garden, rather than trying to spend extra time, space, energy, water, etc., to allow the plants to go to seed and try to save those seeds for next year's garden. It's a lot easier to store the left over packet of unused seeds, than to grow even more.

STORE FOR NEXT YEAR

The other thing that SFG teaches is to store your left over packets for the next planting, even if it's next year. Stored cool and dry, your seeds will last for many years. That's not easy in tropical, developing countries, but storage in a Ziploc or plastic bag in the coolest, driest spot in the house is well worthwhile.

There may be exceptions to the above advice about not trying to grow your own seeds, but it would have to involve very rare and difficult-to-find seeds or if you are in a location that is so remote no one can get another packet of seeds to you for the next five years. Let's teach conservation and efficiency so all of our gardening aid programs can be more successful.
(c) 2008 Mel Bartholomew is an inventor, author, and founder of the Square Foot Gardening Foundation.

Marine Corps Martial Law?

Captain Eric H. May, "Amerika Uber Alles'-Our Nazi Nation."
(c) 2008 Captain May is a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorial writer. His political and military analyses have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Houston Chronicle, Military Intelligence Magazine and is the intelligence correspondent for Issues & Alibis magazine. For his homepage and schedule of upcoming interviews, refer to his homesite.

Degrees Of Significance

Hey, you know what? The novelty is wearing off already.
(c) 2008 Chris Floyd

US Issues Threat To Iraq's $50 Billion Foreign Reserves In Military Deal

The Grand Ayatollah met Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is the main supporter of the Iraqi government, earlier this week and did not condemn the agreement or call for a referendum. He said, according to Mr Hakim, that it must guarantee Iraqi national sovereignty, be transparent, command a national consensus and be approved by the Iraqi parliament. Critics of the deal fear that the government will sign the agreement, and parliament approve it, in return for marginal concessions.
(c) 2008 Patrick Cockburn is the Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, he was awarded the 2005 Martha Gellhorn prize for war reporting. His book on his years covering the war in Iraq, The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq (Verso) was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for non-fiction.

U.S. Oil Independence; Not!

I should point out that every president since Nixon has made the same promise regarding oil independence. But, since history isn't all that interesting, how about we take a little futuristic tour? I'm bettin' that the oil embargo of 1973 will look like a trip to Disneyland compared to the one that's coming up. What say you?
(c) 2008 Mike Folkerth is not your run-of-the-mill author of economics. Nor does he write in boring lecture style. Not even close. The former real estate broker, developer, private real estate fund manager, auctioneer, Alaskan bush pilot, restaurateur, U.S. Navy veteran, heavy equipment operator, taxi cab driver, fishing guide, horse packer...(I won't go on, it's embarrassing) writes from experience and plain common sense. He is the author of "The Biggest Lie Ever Believed."

The Quotable Quote...

When A Little Dissent Is Too Much

But what Barry Nolan quietly passed out at the awards dinner was not a matter of opinion. He provided information -- in particular, direct quotes from O'Reilly. And that was too much for the Comcast network. As Nolan puts it, "I got fired from my job on a news and information network for reporting demonstrably true things in a room full of news people."
(c) 2008 Norman Solomon's book "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State" just came off the press. The foreword is by Daniel Ellsberg. For more information, go to: www.MadeLoveGotWar.com. The documentary film "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," based on Norman Solomon's book of the same name, went into home-video release and is now available on DVD from Netflix, Amazon and similar outlets. For more information, go to: www.WarMadeEasyTheMovie.org.

Farewell, All You Old Homophobes

Maybe the most vital question is, how to stay flexible? No matter your upbringing, your generational biases, your received opinions and hatreds and viewpoints, how do you crack open your heart to new possibilities, invite new perspectives, understand that nothing actually has to be the way you thought it had to be, before it's too late and you find yourself older and yet in some ways not at all wiser, on the ugly side of a landmark poll?
(c) 2008 Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate and in the Datebook section of the San Francisco Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing!

The Dead Letter Office...

Heil Bush

Investigate This
By Scott Ritter

"I think the questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the president. I think not only those of us in the White House press corps did that, but others in the rest of the landscape of the media did that. ... The right questions were asked. I think there's a lot of critics-and I guess we can count Scott McClellan as one-who think that, if we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, 'This is bogus,' and 'You're a liar,' and 'Why are you doing this?' that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."

That was NBC correspondent David Gregory, appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews." He was responding to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception." McClellan has challenged the role of the U.S. media in investigating and reporting U.S. policy in times of conflict, especially when it comes to covering the government itself.

As a critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, especially when unsubstantiated allegations of weapons of mass destruction are used to sell a war, I am no stranger to the concept of questioning authority, especially in times of war. I am from the Teddy Roosevelt school of American citizenship, adhering to the principle that "to announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."

Some may point out that Roosevelt made that statement in criticism of Woodrow Wilson's foot dragging when it came to getting America into World War I, and that it is odd for one opposed to American involvement in Iraq to quote a former president who so enthusiastically embraced military intervention. But principle can cut both ways on any given issue. The principle inherent in the concept of the moral responsibility of the American people to question their leadership at all times, but especially when matters of war are at stake, is as valid for the pro as it is the con.

The validity of this principle is not judged on the level of militancy of the presidential action in question, but rather its viability as judged by the values and ideals of the American people. While the diversity of the United States dictates that there will be a divergence of consensus when it comes to individual values and ideals, the collective ought to agree that the foundation upon which all American values and ideals should be judged is the U.S. Constitution, setting forth as it does a framework of law which unites us all. To hold the Constitution up as a basis upon which to criticize the actions of any given president is perhaps the most patriotic act an American can engage in. As Theodore Roosevelt himself noted, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it."

Now David Gregory, and others who populate that curious slice of Americana known as "the media," may hold that they, as journalists, operate on a different level than the average American citizen. As Mr. Gregory notes, it is not their "role" to question or debate policy set forth by the president. This is curious, coming from a leading member of a news team that prides itself on the "investigative" quality of its reporting. If we take Gregory at face value, it seems his only job (or "role") is to simply parrot the policy formulations put forward by administration officials, that the integrity of journalism precludes the reporter from taking sides, and that any aggressive questioning concerning the veracity, or morality, or legality of any given policy would, in its own right, constitute opposition to said policy, and as such would be "taking sides."

This, of course, is journalism in its most puritanical form, the ideal that the reporter simply reports, and keeps his or her personal opinion segregated from the "facts" as they are being presented. While it would be a farcical stretch for David Gregory, or any other mainstream reporter or correspondent, to realistically claim ownership of such a noble mantle, it appears that is exactly what Gregory did when he set forth the parameters of what his "role" was, and is, in reporting on stories such as the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the Bush administration's case for war. For this to be valid, however, the issue of journalistic integrity would need to apply not only to the individual reporter or correspondent, but also to the entire system to which the given reporter or correspondent belonged. In the case of Gregory, therefore, we must not only bring into the mix his own individual performance, but also that of NBC News and its parent organization, General Electric.

As a weapons inspector, I was very much driven by what the facts said, not what the rhetoric implied. I maintain this standard to this day in assessing and evaluating American policy in the Middle East. It was the core approach which governed my own personal questioning of the Bush administration's case for confronting Iraq in the lead-up to the war in 2002 and 2003. I am saddened at the vindication of my position in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not because of what I did, but rather what the transcripts of every media interview I conducted at the time demonstrates: The media were not interested in reporting the facts, but rather furthering a fiction. Time after time, I backed my opposition to the Bush administration's "case" for war on Iraq with hard facts, citing evidence that could be readily checked by these erstwhile journalists had they been so inclined. Instead, my integrity and character were impugned by these simple recorders of "fact," further enabling the fiction pushed by the administration into the mainstream, unchallenged and unquestioned, to be digested by the American public as truth.

Scott McClellan is correct to point out the complicity of the media in facilitating the rush to war. David Gregory is disingenuous in his denial that this was indeed the case. Jeff Cohen, a former producer at MSNBC, has written about the pressures placed on him and Phil Donahue leading to the cancellation of the latter's top-rated television show just before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Katie Couric, the former co-host of NBC's "Today Show" (and current news anchor for CBS News), has tacitly acknowledged "pressure" from above when it came to framing interviews in a manner that was detrimental to the Bush administration's case for war. Jessica Yellin, who before the war in Iraq worked for MSNBC, put it best: "I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning," she told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings."

Now, one would think that a journalist with the self-proclaimed integrity of Gregory would jump at the opportunity to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and focus on this story line, if for no other reason than to prove it wrong and thereby clear his name (guilty by association, at the very least) and the name of the organization he represents. The matter is simple, on the surface: NBC network executives either did, or didn't, pressure their producers and reporters when it came to covering and framing stories. Surely an investigative reporter of Gregory's talent can get to the bottom of this one?

While Gregory certainly does not need help from someone of such humble journalistic credentials as myself, perhaps my experience as a former weapons inspector in tracking down the lies and inconsistencies of the Iraqi government could be of some assistance. The first thing I would do is to frame the scope of the problem. The issue of Iraq as a target worthy of war really didn't hit the mainstream until the summer of 2002, so I would start there. I would be interested in defining the potential sources of "pressure" that could be placed on NBC as an organization when it came to reporting on Iraq.

We do know, courtesy of the Pentagon, that throughout the summer and fall of 2002, NBC News, via its Pentagon bureau chief and other contacts, worked closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs, on the issue of media access in any potential future conflict with Iraq. We also know that these meetings were an outgrowth of a meeting held on Sept. 28, 2001, when the Pentagon and bureau chiefs, including representatives from NBC News, discussed how to balance the needs of the media to do their job while protecting national security and the safety of military personnel. The issue of embedding media personnel with the military was raised, with the Pentagon emphasizing that "security at the source" was the principle means for which to ensure no security breach occurred. This meant that if journalists were so embedded, they would have to be responsible about what they reported.

This concept of self-censorship is not a new one, nor is it particularly controversial. Ernie Pyle and Joe Rosenthal, two famous journalists from World War II, were able to establish stellar reputations while operating under the conditions of wartime censorship. So were thousands of other journalists, in several wars. In this manner, journalists covering D-Day knew of the invasion long before the American public, or even members of Congress. Were they bad journalists for not reporting what they knew beforehand? Were their parent organizations corrupted by agreeing to censorship as a prerequisite for access? The answer in both cases is clearly "no."

However, in the interest of establishing a foundation of fact upon which to further any investigation into the possibility of pressure being exerted on NBC reporters and/or correspondents covering a war between the United States and Iraq, an intrepid investigator would want access to documents and records from those early meetings between the Pentagon and NBC News. What were the specific terms spelled out in those meetings? What derivative internal documents were generated inside NBC News, and its corporate master, General Electric, based upon those meetings, and what did those documents discuss? Unlike the situation faced by journalists during World War II, America and Iraq were not yet at war, so did NBC News establish policies on how to balance the operational security needs of the military while reporting on a war which, in the summer and fall of 2002, the Bush administration said wasn't being planned?

Formal planning for "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (only later renamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom") commenced early on in 2002. The U.S. Army began working on a public affairs plan early in 2002 and, in June of that year, briefed U.S. Central Command on a concept for large-scale media embedding for ground forces. U.S. Central Command expanded the Army's plan to include the other services, and by September 2002 had prepared a draft public affairs annex to the overall war plan. Formal public affairs planning for U.S. Central Command was initiated in October 2002, when a planning cell was established. In its first meeting, from Oct. 2-7, the Pentagon reviewed past media operations in time of war, and recommended a break with the past practice of a media pool, and instead suggested a formal embedded media program. These and other media-related issues were consolidated into Annex F (Public Affairs) of the formal "Operation Iraqi Liberation" war plan. It is curious that the Pentagon acknowledges a formal war plan in existence at a time when senior Bush administration officials were telling members of Congress that there were no plans to attack Iraq and that the Bush administration was focusing its efforts on diplomacy.

The embedded media program was formally endorsed by the Pentagon in November 2002. On Nov. 14, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, together with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a message to all military commanders discussing public affairs, and in particular the embedded media program. In it, Rumsfeld addressed how potential future operations [i.e., war with Iraq] could shape public perception of the national security environment, and recognized the need to facilitate access to national and international media to "tell the factual story-good or bad-before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions as they most certainly will continue to do. Our people in the field need to tell the story."

When did NBC News become aware of this Rumsfeld memo? Were there any reactions to the concept of embedded journalists being targeted by the military as being facilitators for disseminating a pro-Pentagon point of view? The Pentagon states that while no formal meetings about draft public affairs annex content were conducted with bureau chiefs, "informal discussions were held with some key individuals in the media, who provided input for consideration." The Pentagon also acknowledges that changes to the public affairs annex were made "based on a bureau chief's recommendation." Was NBC News part of the "informal discussions" with the Pentagon? Did NBC News provide any recommendations to the Pentagon's public affairs office based on such meetings? If so, what were the recommendations, who made them, and how was this staffed within the NBC/GE corporate structure?

These are important questions, since balancing the need to maintain secrecy of potential military operations would appear to conflict with any effort undertaken by NBC News to probe Bush administration claims on not only the justification for confronting Iraq, but whether or not there was any plan to attack Iraq to begin with. How did NBC News compartmentalize its knowledge of the Bush administration's plans to attack Iraq? Was there any crossover in terms of management? Did the same personnel who managed Pentagon relations also manage the reporters whose task it was to press the Bush administration on the veracity of its case for war against Iraq? Did such crossover ever manifest itself in a case of conflict of interest? What is the documentary record of internal discussions within NBC in this regard? Were any policies established on the control of information that touched upon sensitive military activities?

It might appear as if I am on a fishing expedition, so to speak, probing for documents for which there is no evidence that they even exist. Again, I'll do my best to help focus David Gregory on his investigation. Much has been made of the fact that parent company GE makes a great deal of money from the machinery of war. It is useful, however, to examine a specific case, an instance where the news operation, the corporate parent and the military were all too intertwined.

In November 2002, the Pentagon established formal rules that specifically forbade any journalist to "self-embed" with a given military unit, noting that all requests for embedding would be handled via the Pentagon's public affairs office. At the same time, in Kuwait, the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division brigade and battalion commanders were experimenting with embedding journalists during short (three to five days) training exercises. The 2nd Brigade Combat Team in particular pushed the embedding concept, getting journalists embedded at the battalion level. From this experience, the 2nd Brigade was able to establish embedding tactics, techniques and procedures that worked for both the media and the commanders. According to the U.S. Army, "The embeds realized they needed to work with their equipment and develop procedures for filing reports. They identified problems with the durability of their equipment and its ability to withstand the elements and a need for power sources for extended periods."

One of these embeds was NBC News correspondent David Bloom. It should be noted that Bloom tragically died while covering the Iraq war. Bloom was a rising star at NBC, with an eye for a developing story. "Early on," NBC News President Neal Shapiro said shortly after Bloom's death, "he said, 'I want a piece of this war.' " Shapiro isn't specific about the date Bloom made that statement, but since Bloom was dispatched to Kuwait in November 2002, we can assume it was on or about that time. Bloom was one of the embeds who worked closely with the U.S. Army during that time, developing the "tactics, techniques and procedures" for embedded media. In December 2002, Bloom called NBC News from Kuwait, where he had just covered the largest U.S. military live-fire exercise since the first Gulf War. Bloom told his NBC News bosses that he had been given permission to embed with the 3rd Infantry Division, even though official Pentagon policy in place at the time specifically forbade any such action. Bloom already exhibited a familiarity with the war plans of the 3rd Infantry Division, bragging that they were the "tip of the spear." Not only would Bloom and his cameraman be able to ride with the 3rd Infantry Division, they would be able to broadcast live while doing so. Clearly, Bloom and his 3rd Infantry Division colleagues had perfected their embed "tactics, techniques and procedures."

The 2nd Brigade Combat Team had offered Bloom the use of a large M-88A1 tank recovery vehicle. Bloom had worked with the Army to mount a camera and a mobile satellite transmission unit on the M-88. The images taken from the camera would be sent back, while the M-88 was traveling at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour, to a radically modified Ford F-450 SuperDuty truck that carried specialized satellite communication equipment built by Maritime Telecommunications Network, and a gyro-stabilizing transmission dish mounted underneath a protective dome on the rear body. This truck would trail the leading elements of the 3rd Infantry's spearhead at distances of up to two miles. The M-88 carrying Bloom broadcast microwave signals back to the Ford F-450 truck, which in turn transmitted these signals via satellite uplink back to NBC News headquarters.

Bloom was able to provide the specifications of his idea to his NBC bosses, and in just 40 days, engineers from Maritime Telecommunications Network and NBC were able to modify a Ford F-450 to not only withstand the rigors of the Iraqi desert, but also to accommodate the electronics and satellite dish. Four weeks before the start of the war, the vehicle was tested, only to have the signal drop every time the vehicle turned. The engineers worked frantically to fix the problem, and the modified F-450, nicknamed the "Bloommobile," was airlifted to Kuwait, arriving just days before the start of the invasion.

The cost of the Bloommobile has not been formally revealed, but is thought to run into seven figures. This vehicle would never have been made without the support of GE, which underwrote the cost of its construction. GE also fronted for NBC in negotiating special clearances with the Pentagon and State Department on exceptions to policy and import-export control. The Pentagon's official policy while the Bloommobile was being built was for embeds to ride in vehicles provided by their respective unit, and that the media were not to provide their own transportation. Clearly, the Bloommobile represented a stark exception to that rule.

Keep in mind that the entire time GE/NBC was investing millions of dollars into building the Bloommobile so they could get crystal-clear live video transmitted from the "tip of the spear," the Bush administration was playing coy on the subject of war with Iraq. With GE/NBC News so heavily invested in exploiting a war, was there any pressure placed on NBC reporters/correspondents concerning how they dealt with the Bush administration's case for war? It is a fair question, and one that could best be dealt with through an examination of the internal GE/NBC documents concerning the Bloommobile. Who in GE/NBC served as the project manager for the Bloommobile? Certainly Bloom, the brain trust, was away in Kuwait. Who oversaw the project back in the United States? What did the Bloommobile cost? What was the internal debate within GE/NBC concerning the merits/faults of the Bloommobile? An organization like GE/NBC does not allocate millions of dollars on a whim. There had to be some sort of oversight that was documented. Who in GE/NBC fronted for the Bloommobile with the U.S. government? What is the record of communication between GE/NBC and the U.S. government concerning the vehicle? Did GE/NBC have to provide the U.S. government with any guarantees concerning the use of the Bloommobile?

In investing in the vehicle, GE/NBC News was investing in the war. There are quid pro quo arrangements made every day, and the link between the U.S. government granting NBC News so many exceptions in the creation and fielding of the Bloommobile, and the crackdown within the GE-controlled NBC/MSNBC family on anti-war and anti-administration sentiment, cannot be dismissed as simply circumstantial. But a review of the available documents would clarify this issue.

David Gregory has vociferously defended the role he and NBC News played in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Scott McClellan's new book, combined with testimony from other sources, including those from within the NBC News family, has called into question the integrity of the operation Gregory serves. An allegation from a credible source has been made, and any denial must therefore be backed with verifiable, documented information. To paraphrase former Secretary of State Colin Powell when talking about Iraq before the invasion, the burden is on NBC to prove that it wasn't complicit with the Bush administration concerning its reporting on Iraq and administration policies, and not on NBC's critics to prove that it was.

The old proverb notes that "a fish stinks from its head," something that aptly describes the GE/NBC News team when discussing the issue of Iraq. I challenge David Gregory to demonstrate otherwise.
(c) 2008 Scott Ritter a former Marine Corps intelligence officer, was a chief inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books; "Target Iran," with a new afterword by the author, was recently released in paperback by Nation Books.

Put Up Or Shut Up
By Mary Pitt

Okay, America, it's time to put up or shut up! After a couple of generations have reached maturity since the civil rights marches and all the hoopla that was brought about by the women's rights movement, we have it made on the basis of equal rights for all, right? We have banished chauvinism, both sexual and racial, and we are now the model for a modern democratic republic and an example to the rest of the world of a society that should be emulated? We shall see!

For the first time in history, we have been a part of an historic contest between a woman and a man of African extraction to represent a major party in the race for the presidency of the United States. By a narrow margin, the Democratic party has chosen a man of mixed race to represent them in the general election. The test for the nation is now whether that man or the white hero of a former war, after years of additional service in the senior body of our government, should be chosen to direct the future progress of our nation into the future and, in a sense, to guide the process of bringing the world together in a spirit of common humanity. This choice should be made in an atmosphere of civility and common cause.

There are many problems to be addressed in the coming months and the criteria with which we make our decisions are critical to the future of the entire world. Should we continue our occupation of a Middle Eastern state and threaten others with invasions if they are unaccepting of our edicts? Should we continue the current economic pattern of allowing the extremely wealthy to make their own rules and to reap the benefits of unscrupulous and excessive wealth to the detriment of the common folk, the poor, the disabled, and the elderly? Should we continue to pour trillions of dollars into the effort to subjugate a people of a different race and religion while neglecting the very real needs of the soldiers who are the real victims of this effort?

And, first and foremost, we must search our souls in the making of that decision in order to be sure that we are using the proper yardstick in measuring what out final decision should be. It is already a given that the Democratic candidate will be subjected to the worst possible form of racial discrimination that the evil minds of unrepentant bigots will be able to devise. It began during the primary season with the forwarded e-mails which branded Senator Obama as a Muslim and pointed out that his middle name is one that was shared by the tyrant of Iraq whom we were taught, (wrongly, as it turned out), to hate as an instrument of the devil himself.

In the few days since the primary count ended, the internet is hopping with transmissions reputed to be of the Senator Obama's family tree and their connections with scurrilous African leaders. Soon we will be led to believe that we know everything about every facet of this man's life which can be creatively construed to be derogatory all the way back to and including his toilet training. One would think that Senator McCain would show a bit of sympathy for his opponent since he was himself the victim of such "swift-boating" attacks in previous elections but I believe we will find him silent on the subject.

But there is an ulterior motive in this effort. The purpose of trying to find any acceptable reason for the citizens to vote against this man is to allow cover for those who will not vote for him anyway, though for reasons they would refuse to admit. You see, it had become politically incorrect for anyone to admit to that most basic and deplorable motive that is and has been at the base of the opposition to the nomination of Senator Obama. That motive is bigotry, a sin which every modern-day American will deny ever feeling.

We are the epitome of equal rights! The Shining City On The Hill! The example of democracy for the civilized world! It is time to put up or shut up! The world is waiting to see if our deeds are equal to our words this time. We WILL be receiving e-mails with propaganda which will try to discourage us from voting for a candidate not based on his own character and actions but which will urge us to use other excuses to justify our own mistrust of one whose skin is a darker shade of tan than our own.

There is little that can be done to stop the dissemination of these outright lies and, truth be told, we would not want to since, as internet bloggers and writers, we want the internet to remain free. However, we can immediately delete those that we receive or, better yet, return them to sender with a few well-chosen words of truth. While many people will dutifully forward these messages to everyone on their mailing list without thinking, we must be vigilant, knowing full well that, at the same time, this campaign of slander is taking place, the Republican candidate will be trying to score on the fear factor which would have us believe that Iraq is still as dangerous as we were led to believe it was before the invasion and before we learned that it was based on carefully-nurtured lies...

This is one small thing that we can do to fight back. Let the warmongers know that the American people are onto them and will not be swayed by their racial ethnocentric fear tactics but will make up our own minds based on the expressions of intentions from the candidates themselves. We must remain in control and make these decisions based on our own and our nation's future well-being and not on the familiar tenets of fear and racial and religious distrust that have been fostered by the Bush administration. If we do not speak up as individuals, there will be no changes in the path of the nation.

Yes it is time to put up or shut up, to stand up and speak up and let the opposition know that we will not tolerate their underhanded methods of spreading lies and mis-statements regarding any one of the candidates and that the time is past when they can do so with impunity and without retaliation. Now, those of us who believe in the free exercise of democracy can make it known that we have had enough of the threats and fear mongering of the ultra-right and that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more! It's the least we can do on behalf of our own freedoms and our future.
(c) 2008 Mary Pitt is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and common sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for societal "perfection." Huzzahs and whiney complaints may be sent to mpitt@cox.net

The Cartoon Corner...

This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of
~~~ Bob Englehart ~~~