Veterans for Common Sense

May 31, 2008, New York – Debate continues today over charges by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, in a new book and on TV, that his former boss “hoodwinked” the media, and the public, into going along with the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003.

Some reporters, such as NBC’s David Gregory — and anchors (past or present), such as Tom Brokaw and Charles Gibson — are actively defending their performance.

So it’s worth looking back at what I called, last year, the “most powerful indictment of the news media for falling down in its duties in the run-up to the war in Iraq.” The program appeared on April 25, a 90-minute PBS broadcast called “Buying the War,” which marked the return of “Bill Moyers Journal.”

I included my review in my new book “So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits — and the President — Failed on Iraq.” An excerpt is published below.

 — While much of the evidence of the media’s role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new, it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility.

The war continues today, now in its fifth year, with the death toll for Americans and Iraqis rising again — yet Moyers points out, “the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush Administration to go to war on false pretenses.”

Among the few heroes of this devastating film are reporters with the Knight Ridder/McClatchy bureau in D.C. Tragically late, Walter Isaacson, who headed CNN, observes, “The people at Knight Ridder were calling the colonels and the lieutenants and the people in the CIA and finding out, you know, that the intelligence is not very good. We should’ve all been doing that.”

At the close, Moyers mentions some of the chief proponents of the war who refused to speak to him for this program, including Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Charles Krauthammer, Judith Miller, and William Safire.

But Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor, admits, “I don’t think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war…We didn’t dig enough. And we shouldn’t have been fooled in this way.” Bob Simon, who had strong doubts about evidence for war, was asked by Moyers if he pushed any of the top brass at CBS to “dig deeper,” and he replies, “No, in all honesty, with a thousand mea culpas. … nope, I don’t think we followed up on this.”

Instead he covered the marketing of the war in a “softer” way, explaining to Moyers: “I think we all felt from the beginning that to deal with a subject as explosive as this, we should keep it, in a way, almost light – if that doesn’t seem ridiculous.”

Moyers replies: “Going to war, almost light.”

Walter Isaacson is pushed hard by Moyers and finally admits, “We didn’t question our sources enough.” But why? Isaacson notes there was “almost a patriotism police” after 9/11 and when the network showed civilian casualties it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and “big people in corporations were calling up and saying, ‘You’re being anti-American here.'”

Moyers then mentions that Isaacson had sent a memo to staff, leaked to the Washington Post, in which he declared, “It seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan” and ordered them to balance any such images with reminders of 9/11. Moyers also asserts that editors at the Panama City (Fla.) News-Herald received an order from above, “Do not use photos on Page 1A showing civilian casualties. Our sister paper has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening emails.”

Walter Pincus of the Washington Post explains that even at his paper reporters “do worry about sort of getting out ahead of something.” But Moyers gives credit to Charles J. Hanley of The Associated Press for trying, in vain, to draw more attention to United Nations inspectors failing to find WMD in early 2003.

The disgraceful press reaction to Colin Powell’s presentation at the United Nations seems like something out of Monty Python, with one key British report cited by Powell being nothing more than a student’s thesis, downloaded from the Web — with the student later threatening to charge U.S. officials with “plagiarism.”

Phil Donahue recalls that he was told he could not feature war dissenters alone on his MSNBC talk show and always had to have “two conservatives for every liberal.” Moyers resurrects a leaked NBC memo about Donahue’s firing that claimed he “presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”

Moyers also throws some stats around: In the year before the invasion William Safire (who predicted a “quick war” with Iraqis cheering their liberators) wrote “a total of 27 opinion pieces fanning the sparks of war.” The Washington Post carried at least 140 front-page stories in that same period making the administration’s case for attack. In the six months leading to the invasion the Post would “editorialize in favor of the war at least 27 times.”

Of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news in the six months before the war, almost all could be traced back to sources solely in the White House, Pentagon or State Dept., Moyers tells Russert, who offers no coherent reply.

The program closes on a sad note, with Moyers pointing out that “so many of the advocates and apologists for the war are still flourishing in the media.” He then runs a pre-war clip of President Bush declaring, “We cannot wait for the final proof: the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Then he explains: “The man who came up with it was Michael Gerson, President Bush’s top speechwriter.

“He has left the White House and has been hired by the Washington Post as a columnist.”

June 1, 2008 – There’s been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks — which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington’s attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained “special groups” that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five “surge” brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once — something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has “unparalleled” public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq’s 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

May 29, 2008 – Because of the arrogant, corrupt lies of George W. Bush and his neocon handlers my nephew is dead, and I am mad as hell.

My nephew, my sister’s son, died in Iraq a few days before this Memorial Day.

Jason Dene was not killed by enemy fire nor friendly fire but by Bush’s brutal and cynical stop-loss program.

Jason grew up in Orwell and Rutland. He was in his mid-30s, a career Army officer due retire next month. His wife and children were planning his homecoming.

Because of Bush’s abusive stop-loss policy, Jason had been sent into an unwanted third tour of duty. He was a father of three and could not afford to lose his pension. Some “volunteer Army”.

During his three 15-month tours in Iraq, exposure to roadside bombs and other job-related injuries caused Jason to be hospitalized several times for concussion and internal bleeding and other injuries. Recently, Jason’s condition was such that the Department of Defense flew him from Iraq to Dover Air Force Base for surgery. He was released from the hospital into the loving arms of the government who sent him directly back into Iraq. He was put on active duty while he was still on a liquid diet, unable to eat solid food because of a throat hemorrhage due to a botched surgery at a military hospital.

To date all the family has heard from the Army is that Jason variously died “in his sleep” and “in his bunk” and “in his quarters” and my favorite “sleep apnea complicated by smoking cigarettes,” in other words, natural causes.

After his second tour Jason returned home with severe mental and physical issues. He was certainly in no condition to be pressed into a third tour. He wanted out of the army. But Jason was a victim of the liar’s back-door draft.

The administration knows the war could not continue if the draft was reinstated, hence the criminally deceptive stop-loss program. At all costs, the administration wants to avoid Vietnam-scale student protests. In this case the cost fell on Jason, whose death will not be included as a war casualty. Jason Dene will not be buried at Arlington National Cemetery; he will just sort of … disappear quietly (they hope).

How many others have died in Iraq of “natural causes,” the soldiers we will never hear about?

Because of George Bush, the arrogant, the corrupt, the liar, the war criminal, my nephew is dead and my sister and the rest of my family are devastated.

Yes, I am very, very angry. How would you feel?

(Jason is the nephew of actress Mia Farrow)

May 29, 2008 – I’m delighted Senator Webb’s GI Bill and Senator McCain’s opposition to it presents another opportunity to emphasize that the neoconservative elite who lied about Iraq also lied about “supporting the troops” — the very club they used to silence criticism when they lied about Iraq. If we can reach the place where a super-majority of the U.S. population is permanently convinced that you can’t trust anything related to military affairs said by neocon elitists like Pastor John Hagee’s AIPAC, it’s quite plausible that we could, at long last, enjoy a Presidency of the United States in which the U.S. commits no new violations of international law with respect to the use of military force.

In the latest evidence that neocons “support the troops” as long as it doesn’t cost anything to them or their rich elitist friends, Bloomberg reports:

In the midst of the worst surge in mortgage defaults in seven decades, foreclosures in U.S. towns where soldiers live are increasing at a pace almost four times the national average.
You might think veterans’ groups would be very concerned about this. You’d be right.

“We’ve never faced a situation like this, not in the Vietnam War, World War II, or the Korean War, where so many military are in danger of losing their homes,” said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, a Washington-based advocacy group started in 2002 by Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans.

How does this affect the family of an individual soldier?

U.S. Air Force Technical Sergeant Jeffrey VerSteegh…departed…in April for his third tour in Iraq. The father of four may lose his home when he returns.

The four-bedroom farmhouse he and his wife, Kathleen, own…went into default in December after their monthly mortgage costs doubled to $1,100. Kathleen missed work because of breast cancer and they struggled to keep up the house payment, falling behind on other bills. Their bankruptcy was approved by the court a week after VerSteegh left for Iraq.

Congress has at its disposal a simple means for making sure that Sergeant VerSteegh and his wife Kathleen are not thrown out of their house. Representative Raul Grijalva has introduced H. R. 6116, “To allow homeowners of moderate-value homes who are subject to mortgage foreclosure proceedings to remain in their homes as renters.” The bill draws on economist Dean Baker’s “own-to-rent” proposal. Moderate income homeowners facing foreclosure could stay in their homes as long as they paid fair market rent.

If you agree that your America wouldn’t throw Sergeant VerSteegh and his wife Kathleen out of their house, why not call your Representative at 202-225-3121 and ask them to co-sponsor Grijalva’s bill?

May 31, 2008 – The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs last week said it would refuse to abide by a 14-year-old presidential directive requiring it to help register veterans to vote.

It says doing so would detract from providing medical care and benefits to veterans.

On May 1, California officials asked the VA to help register veterans, citing a 1994 executive order by President Bill Clinton requiring federal agencies to undertake the responsibility if a state’s top elections official makes the request.

The VA’s May 19 refusal, which received little media attention, has repercussions beyond California. It provides the latest sign that the VA is vigorously resisting organized voter registration drives on its property as a presidential election nears.

Earlier this month, the agency banned any group or individual from registering voters in any of its facilities. Critics say politics are behind the decision and accused the VA of trying to prevent low-income veterans from voting.

But VA chief of staff Tom Bowman said that veterans already receive help, when requested, for registration and that no one is complaining.

“My information is that there has not been a great hue and cry from patients that they’re being denied assistance,” Bowman said. “To say this is politically motivated is simply inaccurate and untrue.”

VA Secretary James Peake, an appointee of President Bush, told California that Clinton’s order could not force a federal agency to comply if doing so isn’t “practicable.”

Attorney Scott Rafferty, who is suing the VA over voter registration restrictions, said the agency is deliberately misinterpreting Clinton’s executive order.

“The rule allows no discretion. It says ‘shall,’ ” said Rafferty. “They say they can’t afford it, but they’ve identified no cost. I’m just kind of baffled.”

Under the order, the VA would have to provide voter registration materials to veterans living at its facilities, help them fill out forms and then send the completed forms to the state.

So far, California is the only state to have made the request.

Voter registration “activities, while extremely important, would require substantial use of VA personnel,” Peake said in a May 19th letter to California’s secretary of state, Debra Bowen.

“Using VA resources in this manner would diminish the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission of providing medical care and benefits to veterans,” Peake wrote.

The dispute has thus far barely raised a ripple in political circles or in the mainstream media nationally or in Florida, where the 2000 presidential election was decided by a mere 537 votes.

Barack Obama is one of just a few national political figures to reference the issue.

In a recent speech in Pennsylvania, Obama said, “There is nothing patriotic about denying wounded troops the ability to vote. … It’s time to reverse this shameful decision.”

John McCain’s campaign did not respond to a request for the candidate’s position on the issue.

“At a time when the nation is at war and seriously injured servicemen and women are returning home daily, anything which detracts from this health care mission would be inappropriate,” Peake told California officials.

A spokeswoman for Bowen’s office said California is considering its legal options but declined to elaborate.

The VA has previously allowed nonpartisan groups, such as the League of Women Voters, to register voters on its property. But that changed without explanation earlier this month, when all groups were banned.

The VA now says only its official volunteers can assist veterans who seek help to register. Critics say they fear the VA will not make registering veterans a priority or will only register those known to be Republicans.

Rafferty challenged the VA’s registration policy in federal court. A judge dismissed the complaint because he said it failed to prove anyone had been prevented from voting. That decision is being appealed.