Categorical Aperitif

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 10:32 AM 1 comments

I made the mistake of catching a few minutes of ABC World News with Charles Gibson last night, and I am still pissed off. They did a brief story on what according to them was "the talk of Washington" yesterday: the optimistic "A War We Just Might Win" op-ed by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack in yesterday's New York Times. I'm here to tell ya that ABC's treatment of the story fit the mold described by ThinkProgress (speaking of CNN and Fox):

• The story was framed in "surprise" terms: something unexpected happened today re. Iraq.
• What was it, you ask? Why, two military analysts who are "long and persistent critics of the Bush Administration's handling of the war" published an op-ed in the New York Times that speaks of "significant changes taking place" in Iraq; they say that, on a recent eight-day trip to Iraq, they were "surprised by the gains" they saw and that they saw "the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."
• Nowhere in the piece did either Gibson or the three correspondents interviewed—Terry McCarthy, Martha Raddatz, and Jake Tapper—bother to mention that BOTH of these so-called critics were, in fact, longtime supporters of the war and that Pollack had even published a book-length argument for invading Iraq back in 2002—which kinda makes the whole framing of them as longtime critics of the war who've suddenly seen the light, well, seriously misleading, huh? (True, ABC did call them "critics of the Bush Administration's handling of the war" and not "critics of the war," but the spin of the piece was still dishonest and misleading. ABC could have told their viewers that, oh, by the way, both of these guys have spent a lot of energy championing this whole Iraq misadventure, so maybe, just maybe, they have a vested interest in spinning it pretty now.)
• Nowhere in the piece did the ABC folks bother making the connection that the redoubtable Atrios quickly brought up yesterday: suddenly, there's a bunch of military/pundit-type people talking about "sustainable stability" and "sustainable security" and "sustained stability." Why, a reasonably critically astute person might see this pattern and wonder whether the O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed was just another arm of a propaganda campaign designed to imbed yet another asinine euphemism (for horrendous, expensive bloodshed with staying power, as opposed to the kind that's inconsiderate of her needs) and thereby further muddle the national consciousness. D'ya think?

Let's review:

1. Two "military analyst" supporters of the Iraq invasion spend eight days in Iraq and write an op-ed in the leading national newspaper saying that "the surge" is working better than we think;
2. The White House, which has been facing mounting criticism about its war policy and has been desperate to convince Congress and the American people that the much-vaunted "surge" is working, eagerly pushes this miraculously timed op-ed on the media;
3. The media obligingly pass along the op-ed's optimism—while obligingly calling these longtime war supporters "critics" and obligingly failing to inform their audience about the long record of pro-war punditry that maybe, just maybe, makes these guys less than trustworthy as judges of whether "the surge" is succeeding or not.

Addendum: Silly me, I hadn't even checked in with Glenn Greenwald when I let my simmering rage work itself out in the form of the post above. He went digging through O'Hanlon's and Pollack's old records of pro-war punditry, more recent records of pro-surge punditry, etc., and sums up his findings as pithily as anyone could: "It is more surprising—and more newsworthy—that the sun rose this morning than it is that O'Hanlon and Pollack have announced that the Surge is Succeeding." In-f*cking-deed. Or, even more pithily (emphasis his):

The Op-Ed is an exercise in rank deceit from the start. To lavish themselves with credibility -- as though they are war skeptics whom you can trust -- they identify themselves at the beginning "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." In reality, they were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well. They are among the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster.

// posted by nash @ 10:30 AM 3 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 11:18 AM 0 comments

Labels: Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 10:54 AM 4 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 10:03 AM 0 comments

Oops—here's yesterday's today, sorry:

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 8:14 AM 0 comments

My friend jules sent me a link this morning to firedoglake's post on the new Pat Tillman news released by the AP. I was depressed and horrified at first; the thought that the guy gave up a multi-million-dollar professional sports career to put his life on the line in the hardest, most dangerous form of national service only to be killed in cold blood by his own comrades—and then to have the White House itself participate in the cover-up—plumbs new depths of awfulness.

I try to be a careful reader and thinker, though, so I took a closer look at the AP story. Were they hyperventilating a bit over at firedoglake? They sum up the AP story as follows:

In other words, Pat Tillman was most likely murdered in the field. In cold blood. By other US soldiers.

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified.

I'm bothered by something, though: Note how the story moves from "Army medical examiners were suspicious" (plural) to "a doctor...was suspicious" (singular). Well, which is it: was one doctor sounding the foul-play alarm, or more than one?

When I read the story, I was also bothered by "the three bullet holes." I thought, Are they only worried about "the close proximity" of those three? Are those three really significant? I had assumed that Tillman had been hit by more than three bullets. But no; according to CNN's account of his death, "He was hit in the head by three bullets fired by U.S. soldiers who say they mistook him for the enemy." So those three bullets—and their proximity—may well be damn significant. And why the rush to destroy his uniform and body armor after his death?

Tillman's uniform was burned by soldiers after his death. The Army's most recent investigation concludes Tillman's uniform and body armor should have been preserved, but the latest report disputes that it was burned in an attempt to cover anything up.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," concludes the report, which says the soldiers thought they were disposing of a "biohazard."

The first report about Tillman's death within Army channels -- sent at 4:40 p.m. April 22 -- said that Tillman died in a medical treatment facility after his vehicle came under direct and indirect fire, attributing the gunshot wounds he received to "enemy forces." An investigation was immediately launched, and several documents show that the local chain of command was largely convinced it was fratricide from the beginning.

The next day, Tillman's Ranger body armor was burned because it was covered in blood and was considered a "biohazard." His uniform was also burned. Jones noted that this amounted to the destruction of evidence.

Soldiers reported they burned the evidence because "we knew at the time, based on taking the pictures and walking around it it was a fratricide. . . . We knew in our hearts what had happened, and we weren't going to lie about it. So we weren't thinking about proof or anything."

I still think that firedoglake goes beyond the available evidence, but I can't say that I blame them. At this point, one would be a fool not to suspect bad motives where the Bush Administration is involved—and there are just too many holes in the official stories surrounding Tillman's death for us not to be suspicious when an Army medical examiner smells deliberate fratricide.

I fear that we'd best get used to these new depths of awfulness. Something tells me they're going to get deeper and murkier before the Bush Administration is finally history.

// posted by nash @ 2:20 PM 3 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 6:50 AM 2 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 10:41 AM 0 comments

Bonus: I may have to start a separate category for bizarre, abstract signs. This one has me stymied; does anyone have any better ideas?

Update: Ask, and ye shall receive (below).

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:31 AM 2 comments

Oops, I missed last week, but here's my contribution for this week's fun:

Labels: Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:06 AM 0 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:00 AM 0 comments

WASHINGTON — Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

Given the periodic daydreaming on the right about how all it would take would be one horrible terrorist attack to send America groveling and whimpering back to the Republicans, what with how they're supposedly tougher on terror and all (never mind how utterly they've botched their self-invented war on it so far), perhaps a better title for this post would be "What the Hell Are These People PLANNING?"

// posted by nash @ 12:34 PM 2 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:09 AM 2 comments

... and this is for Sunday. An excerpt from nashtbrutusandshort's Adventures in Miscommunication:

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:02 AM 0 comments

Well, giving Inventing Situations a rousing sendoff was the prelude to a crappy weekend. Here's for Saturday:

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 8:51 AM 0 comments

Here's a trio in honor of the Caption This! Reunion over at Inventing Situations today. I'm still not feeling well, but I'll try to join the fun over there at some point today. It looks like GersonK is putting IS on hiatus after today's reunion, so check out the closest thing to the original Caption This! while you can. Thanks for all you've done, Gerson, and I'm sorry for not having been over there more lately.

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:57 AM 1 comments

Via ThinkProgress, I see that the history-warping, Bush-stroking "documentary" The Path to 9/11 has been nominated for seven Emmy wards. I was mildly perturbed by this news until I took a closer look at what it's up for—and what it's not up for.

What it's up for:

• Outstanding Casting For A Miniseries, Movie Or A Special
• Outstanding Cinematography For A Miniseries Or Movie
• Outstanding Main Title Design
• Outstanding Music Composition For A Miniseries, Movie Or A Special (original Dramatic Score)
• Outstanding Single-camera Picture Editing For A Miniseries Or A Movie
• Outstanding Sound Editing For A Miniseries, Movie Or A Special
• Outstanding Special Visual Effects For A Miniseries, Movie Or A Special

• Exceptional Merit in Nonfiction Filmmaking
• Outstanding Nonfiction Series
• Outstanding Nonfiction Special
• Outstanding Writing for Nonfiction Programming

Okay, then.

// posted by nash @ 9:35 AM 0 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:58 AM 0 comments

It's yesterday's Daily Random Flickr Blogging...today! (Sorry: I was a bit under the weather yesterday.)

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:53 AM 0 comments

I'm somewhat stymied by today's lackluster DRFB results, so today I'll adopt a Socratic approach and proceed by asking questions:

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 3:10 PM 1 comments

I don't know whether it can save the republic, but I sure like the sound of it.

// posted by nash @ 10:22 AM 0 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 10:18 AM 1 comments

Meanwhile, TomDispatch has been talking about the under-reported air campaign in Iraq for several years—and has not shied away from pointing what it means to be dropping more bombs, smart or not, into crowded cities.

And they wonder why we love our alternative media.

// posted by nash @ 6:32 AM 0 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 8:08 AM 0 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:23 AM 2 comments

This is for yesterday, sorry.

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 9:17 AM 0 comments

I'd like to dedicate today's Daily Random Flickr Blogging to Michael Moore for his logical and rhetorical slappings around this week of Wolf Blitzer (Part 1 and Part 2), Sanjay Gupta, and CNN. Michael, in the interviews with you that I was hearing before Sicko came out, you sounded very confident, charged-up, and ready for a fight—"loaded for bear," I think is the expression. It's delightful to see that you were loaded for Wolf as well.

And hey, look, it seems that Mike's slapping-around of CNN was on Democracy Now! yesterday, too. I missed it yesterday but can't wait to listen.

I finally saw Sicko, by the way, and I agree with Bob and others: it's Moore's best film yet. More on that when I get a chance.

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 8:43 AM 0 comments

I ran across this cartoon today at Slate:

I'm sorry that I have to ask, but...you do know that those much-hyped reports that the outgoing Democrats trashed the White House in 2001 turned out to be, well, false—don't you? Because if you didn't know that, it would mean that you are woefully ignorant about a matter of public import about which you have seen fit to comment. Now, we're all ignorant in various ways, about various things, but don't we have a moral duty not to dress up our ignorance as knowledge and to pass it along to others as such? What do you think?

And if you do know that those stories were false, well, why are you referring to them in today's cartoon as if they are true? Because if you know that these stories are false but you're publicly pretending otherwise in order to score some cheap political point, well, that would pretty much make you a shameless liar, wouldn't it?

Or is your cartoon meant to poke fun at those foolish Americans who still believe lies like those about the supposed White House vandalism—despite the fact that they were debunked long ago? This would be the most charitable interpretation of your cartoon; however, there are no signs in the cartoon that its target is, say, the kind of misleading media outlets (like Fox and Drudge) that help to make fools of such Americans. No; the only clear target in the cartoon is "the Clintons." Put it this way: if you meant to poke fun at media-transmitted lies and the people who foolishly believe them, then you didn't do it very well.

So which is it? Are you (a) woefully ignorant, (b) a shameless liar, or (c) an inept cartoonist?

This is a rhetorical question; I don't really expect an answer. Frankly, after six years of George W. Bush, I've stopped caring whether people like you are best described as (a) ignorant, (b) mendacious, or (c) incompetent. I see hopeful signs that more and more Americans are learning to stop caring about what people like you say and think. And who can blame us? If more of us had stopped listening to people like you a few years ago, we'd be thousands of lives and billions of dollars richer today.

I look forward to a future where people like you are, at best, critical oddities rather than figures of any public importance or influence.

Hasten the day,

--nash

Labels: editorial cartoons

// posted by nash @ 3:23 PM 1 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 3:16 PM 0 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 8:16 PM 1 comments

Bonus Bonus: And sometimes when you're randomly Flickring you come across photos that are just bursting with creepiness:

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 8:07 PM 0 comments

Labels: Daily Random Flickr Blogging

// posted by nash @ 2:59 PM 0 comments