War coverage compared - Vietnam and Iraq

Helen Thomas in her book Watchdogs of Democracy? compares news coverage of the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

The number of journalist casualties is already as great as in Vietnam. The total in Vietnam was some four dozen -- about 48. In the first two years of the Iraq war there were 41. In Iraq the U.S. military doesn't keep track nor does it investigate the deaths. (Reporters without boarders indicates that 118 journalists have been killed since March 2003 while doing their job. Two other journalists are still missing.)

In Vietnam the journalists had access to all of South Vietnam especially when the U.S. was in control. Journalists were protected by the U.S. military and were considered neutral. They could hop a ride and moved freely in U.S. held territory. They knew were the boundaries were and knew where they could go. Although there was much misinformation, there was no censorship.

In Iraq there are no boundaries and, even inside the U.S. controlled Green Zone, journalists are not safe. Kidnappings and beheadings are a constant threat as is the danger of suicide bombings. Coverage of the Iraq war is hampered because reporters are afraid to move about and many media organizations are finding it hard to get reporters who want to risk working in Iraq.

In the early stages of the Iraq war, "embedded" journalists were protected by the military, but much of what they reported was controlled. Independent journalists got no protection and some were killed and imprisoned by the U.S. military. The International Federation of Journalists criticized the U.S. for failure to report or investigate deaths, suggesting that "the absence of credible inquiry leads to speculation about the targeting of journalists by U.S. soldiers."

The U.S. military has also used the press for propaganda purposes. Military spokesmen announced the invasion of Falluja three weeks before it happened. They described football star Pat Tillman as a hero killed in battle, when in fact he was killed by American bullets. Private Jessica Lynch was supposed to have "fought to the last bullet before being wounded and captured." In fact, she was injured when her truck crashed and she was knocked unconscious.

In addition to misinformation the U.S. and Iraqi government are involved press censorship. Aljazeera [whose reporters were targeted and killed by the U.S.] was banished from Iraq, Al Hawza, a newspaper run by rebel Shiites was shut down, as was Al Arabiya. Al Arabiya resumed broadcasting under U.S. military control.

In Vietnam reporters approached the war as neutral observers. In Iraq many U.S. reporters were active supporters of the war, believing that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction and that the war would be short-lived. Because of lies and deception, this active support has now turned to cynicism and skepticism.

Source: Helen Thomas. (2006). Watchdogs of Democracy? The waning Washington press corps and how it has failed the public. New York: Scribner.

Missouri Amendment 2 is bad for America

I oppose Missouri's Amendment 2, for stem cell research, because NO special interest should have its own amendment in a state constitution. This is a legislative matter and a state constitution should not be cluttered with legislation. Supporters of stem cell research couldn't get the state legislature to enact a bill favoring their cause, so now they are resorting to more devious means. It's like a spoiled child going to dad and mom who both say "no." Then the little boy runs to the rest of the family so he can get what he wants. We don't need a constitutional referendum to enact legislation.

However, not only is the process bad, but so is the content of the amendment.

The $2 billion-endowed Stowers Institute in Kansas City is spearheading the campaign for stem cell research in Missouri and for passage of Amendment 2. Supporters have put $20 million into the campaign. Although the Republican governor and other GOP leaders support the measure, most state Republicans oppose the amendment. U.S. Senator Jim Talent, who is in a race for his political life, now says he opposes the amendment, not because he is against stem cell research, but because he says the amendment "would create ... an unqualified constitutional right to clone the earliest stages of human life."

The five-page, 2,000-word ballot for the amendment is misleading. It begins with the statement: "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being." But then it goes onto support state funding of stem cell research. Cloning and stem cell research are apparently different processes, according to the author's of the amendment.

The amendment gives a blank check to stem cell research, by denying the right of legislators to withhold funding for stem cell research. It states: "[N]o state or local government body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures."

Why should you care if you are not a resident of Missouri? Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak says it this way: "If government-approved cloning can be sold to the barometer pro-life
state of Missouri, it will show up next in other states with major research facilities."

So whether you live in Missouri or not, voice your opposition to this amendment and this kind of political process.

Watch a video explaining the amendment at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlPG_276j8Q

U.S. leadership should be held accountable

A John Hopkins study this week proposed that the number of dead in
Iraq since the U.S. invasion (liberation) is 655 thousand, of 601
thousand have been from violent deaths. This would mean 500 people
die per day in Iraq.

President Bush last December claimed the number was 30,000. Some
military officials say it is 50,000. The UN counts the number of dead
at 100 a day. The Iraqi group Iraqiyun reports 128,000 between the
invasion and July 2005. "Extrapolated to the present, the figure would
be in the high 100,000s or low 200,000s," says William M. Arkin. So
only about a third of what John Hopkins estimates.

Only a third? The number of 200,000 is astounding. If this was
Cambodia or Rwanda, somebody would be held accountable. But no, this
is the United States we are talking about - and no one will be held
accountable.

Part of the reason is the rhetoric that surrounds this war.
Initially, President Bush claimed we were going to war to stop the
Iraqi production of weapons of mass destruction and their sale to Al
Qaida. When it became clear that there are no WMDs and that Saddam
Hussein did not support bin Laden, the President claimed that the war
was justified in freeing the Iraqis from a brutal ruler. After Saddam
Hussein was captured, the goal became to spread democracy in the
Middle East. Now Bush is tying the war to the larger war on terror.
He portrays the Iraqi war as a fight between "good and evil." We are
confronting terrorists in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at
home," and we are "making America safer." "We're in the ideological
struggle of the 21st century," he told a California audience this
month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."

But then last week Bush admitted, "We can't tolerate a new terrorist
state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that
could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict
economic damage on the West."

Bush keeps revising the justification of the war. When will he run
out of excuses, admit he made a mistake, apologize to the nation and
the world? When will the Congress begin impeachment proceedings? The
answer for both questions is "never." The reason is that the U.S.
Congress and nation also are complicit in this atrocity. Congress
approved the action and the nation applauded and since has stood by
and done nothing.