So Wrong For So Long, So Why Change Now?
Before I get in to Greg's questions, I'd like to make an observation from something I've just covered. (Much like the media in general when it comes to Iraq, I came here with some preconceived notions, and I'm not going to be diverted from them.)
On Friday I attended the Winter Soldier conference. Winter Soldier is a veterans-led investigation into what its organizers call the systemic brutality of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. (It's modeled on the Vietnam-era one that introduced the world to a brave young sailor named John Kerry.) The very powerful and emotional testimony by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans on display painted a horrifying picture that has gotten absolutely no coverage. Soldiers and Marines said that they routinely carried "drop weapons" to plant on the bodies of dead Iraqi civilians to cover up accidental deaths. They said that their chains of command encouraged brutality and falsified casualty statistics. They showed video from 2006 showing off-camera Marines firing for a solid minute on the minaret of an Anbar Province mosque, which is, if unprovoked (as the Marine who provided the footage said), a war crime. They talked about how used they felt as bodyguards for unaccountable contractors who used the war to line their pockets.
Steve Vogel from the Washington Post was there, and he wrote a good piece for Saturday's paper. But the Post ran it on the front of its Metro section. The Metro section! There's not a single plausible reading of Winter Soldier as a local story. The Post did what any viewer of The Wire would recognize as the newspaper equivalent of putting McNulty on the Boat. It couldn't kill Vogel's story outright, so it slotted the piece where no one in power will ever read it. As Greg's book points out, that's exactly what the Post did to the skeptical pre-war reporting done by Walter Pincus.
But at least the Post sent a reporter to Winter Soldier. The New York Times ran nothing. The Los Angeles Times ran nothing. CNN ran nothing. MSNBC ran -- you get the idea. (I'm pretty sure the Houston Chronicle, AP and NPR had reporters on the scene.)
So this is how the press -- and the country -- treats the young men and women that we send off to war when they come home and try to explain the occupation's horrors. Greg, everybody, TPM community: Why is that? And what can be done about it? Joe, I'd love to hear your take in particular.
The press seems to be falling in line to forget or minimize the Iraq issue during the election, so I'd guess that the various campaign managers' strategies of focusing on character and six-degree associations with unsavory supporters is working on the country's journalists. Hence, nay on issues, yea on sexing up the campaign mud-slinging. Not to discount the possibility that after five years in, the war on terror is getting kind of old for the public.
March 17, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM are simply giving the news junkie audience what they want. Continual evidence is on this very site, day in, day out, as people here can post on anything they wish to:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/16-week/
March 18, 2008 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 20, 2011 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube download
December 21, 2010 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did any of them say that they cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside?
March 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abdul, why don't you ask relevant questions? In case you forgot, we're supposed to be the good guys, the white hats; we're not supposed to do any of that. Just because they do worse doesn't justify our doing bad.
"We're not as bad as them" is no excuse. But I wouldn't expect anyone as un-American as you to understand that.
March 17, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Atrocities in war should not be news to anyone -- war itself is an atrocity and is in fact a crime under international law. "Systematic brutality" in war has been known of since wars began. It has not been reported by the US media -- to do so would not be patriotic nor profitable. The US corporate media isn't part of the solution, they are part of the problem. They have faithfully promoted the war and provided human interest stories that sell newspapers and facilitate the advertising which carries the media's costs and provides its profits. Why? Follow the money. What can be done about it? Nothing.
We've had to go to foreigners like Riverbend and Alexander Cockburn to get the truth on Iraq. US media won't give it to us. They never have and they never will.
The "men and women that we send off to war" are often just kids, and what do they know. The government converts them to killers and they kill. Big surprise. Unfortunately while their bodies can handle it, if they survive physically, their minds are a different story so thence comes the PTSD and the nightmares. We see them on freeway off-ramps with cardboard sign and a cup, "wounded warriors" the country has used up and thrown away. Have they suffered and died in vain? No. Dick Cheney, who just assured Iraq that the US would be there forever, has a nice new $2.9m house bought with Halliburton dividends and many new millionaires have been created.
March 17, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Systematic brutality" in war has been known of since wars began. It has not been reported by the US media -- to do so would not be patriotic nor profitable.
TPMCAFE is part of the U.S. media, dummy, and this sentiment is hardly unique to you. In fact, it's so old and so commonplace that it is not news at all.
March 17, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, Don B. And, I'm also shocked that Mr. Ackerman is shocked. I've known for 55 of my 75 years that soldiers are trained to kill people and blow things up. What does he think, that our military has been on some sort of panty-raid in Iraq?
Who can explain the media. I don't think the media can explain themselves.
I was comforted this weekend to find out that if my fed income tax was $20,000, $1,400 of it could pay for about 5000 bullets for an M16 machine gun. I ran the info by some friends who quickly reminded me that those 5000 bullets wouldn't actually kill 5000 people. That made me feel much better.
March 17, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phelicity, your bullets wouldn't even kill one person.
Estimated number of bullets fired by U.S. troops for every insurgent killed in Iraq (or Afghanistan): 250,000, according to John Pike, director of the Washington military-research group GlobalSecurity.org.
Of course those bullets are composed of depleted uranium which causes cancer and deformation in children. But that's not something we talk about in polite company, is it.
March 17, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spencer,
Here's what you're up against.
Today Wolf Blitzer of CNN cut to John King who is in Iraq with McCain. King was harshly criticized by Glenn Greenwald of Salon for a puff ball interview King conducted of McCain about 6/8 weeks ago, and when King reported today one could easily think he was reading off the McCain talking points.
After King's puff piece, CNN cut back to Blitzer who now brought up Obama and immediately showed a video of Obama's pastor's "God Damn America"
sermon. Blitzer then called on his guests, Donna Brazil and the winger Terry Jefferies. CNN had a split screen up now showing the guests on one side and a picture of Obama and Pastor Wright standing shoulder to shoulder on the other, and Obama had his arm around Wright's shoulder. Blitzer then asked questions on Obama's connection to Wright. It wouldn't be hard for me to believe that CNN's producers are 'Republican friendly'.
The point is, we have a consolidated media today and they like Republicans, and covering The Winter Soldier Conference would not receive Republican approval. The media wants their golden boy McCain as President and all that stands in their way is the blogs.
Remember, these 'journalists' are the cretins who laughed uproariously at that dinner when Bush pretended to look all over the stage for WMD.
March 17, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That truth is the first casualty of war is an ancient observation. We're dealing with some very primitive, tribal emotions here. And frankly, I doubt there is any way to change things significantly, so that the media does better next time.
I guess we could start with Chomskyan analyses about how any powerful governmental system generates propaganda arms, including in a democracy, and about the economic and social process by which major media corporations are constituted to spread the approved messages of ruling elites.
But I think the public deserves much more of the blame than Chomsky typically wants to acknowledge. Media outlets in a capitalist economy ultimately seek to thrive by selling papers and attracting viewers, and they do so by providing the content actual and potential consumers want to to consume. In many cases, when war fever is running high, these consumers simply don't want negative, skeptical or critical pieces, and they react strongly against the messenger who delivers them.
I imagine the Post received several letters like the following in response to it's meager inside page coverage of the Winter Soldier hearings:
"You sick, unpatriotic bastards. How can you run this filth?! But I guess I shouldn't expect any better from the Moscow Post. Turncoats! Cancel my subscription immediately!"
Media practice their craft in a competitive marketplace. If running coverage of a certain type poses the risk of losing more customers than it gains, there will be a strong disincentive to go with that kind of coverage.
I recall hearing that in the first days of the Iraq war, CNN and MS-NBC tried to present a somewhat more "objective" picture of what was going on, but they received mountains of angry viewer complaints and were getting killed in the ratings by FOX. So they shifted to a more supportive, cheerleading type of coverage. That's not a case of the media running stories that go contrary to consumer demand in order to serve their corporate masters, but is instead a case of responding to public demand. The media isn't some sort of priesthood or non-profit vocation. It's a business.
I can think of all sorts of reasons why people would be terrified by the Winter Soldier stuff. Look what happened the first time around. The Vietnam Winter Soldier hearings opened up a yawning cultural and political gulf that we are still dealing with now, and which played a major role in 2004 election. Not to long ago there was an intensely heated discussion here at TPM Cafe about whether Vietnam veterans had been spat upon, and how frequently, about whether soldiers in Vietnam had indeed been guilty of this that or the other atrocity. And that brave, young sailor went on to lose a presidential election, in part due to the hostility he incurred 35 years earlier.
March 17, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Dan, don't go blaming Americans for the sins of the government/corporate/media complex. The people have their number -- they don't think much of any of them according to the polls. If, as you suggest, Americans can't handle the truth then truly there is no hope. Actually there is an organized Goering-type campaign here. "Why, of course the people don't want war . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.."
---Hermann Goering, 1946
Corporate media exists not on subscription payments but on advertising revenues. It is the advertisers that dictate the patriotic feel-good pieces that help sell their wares, not any feeling on the part of subscribers.
Peter Arnett, PUlitzer Prize winner, was fired by NBC for saying that "The first [Iraq] war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance." Phil Donahue was an MSNBC war casualty, even before it started. An internal NBC memo stated Donahue should be fired because he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" (wikipedia). Were these people fired because of public pressure? I don't think so.
Currently Keith Olbermann --a critic of the Bush administration whose ratings have spiked as the president’s popularity ratings have dropped -- seems to be doing well (I don't have a teevee).
What your analysis fails to consider is that the media, by providing the truth, could shape the public perception. Unfortunately the media chooses not to go that route but rather just be a megaphone for the government. Check out Norman Solomon's book "War Made Easy -- How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."
March 17, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . .and NBC is owned by General Electric, the world's second largest company and a major US military contractor with contracts worth over $2b a year. We are not talking about people who will rock the boat here.
March 17, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many decades ago, I served eighteen months in the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972). Upon returning to America from my tour-and-a-half carrying out my country's failed "Vietnamization" (i.e., "Yellowing the Corpses") policy, I understood utterly the reason why Civil War veteran Ambrose Bierce defined "patriotism" as "combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any man ambitious to illuminate his name." As well, I learned first-hand that "patriot" typically means: "the dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors." I once qualified as both. In the end, shorn of any trust or delusion, we victim/veterans only cared about each other.
No one gave much of a shit what we thought about America's war-of-aggression on Southeast Asia back then, just as no one gives a poodle's crap today about what surviving veterans have done and witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, some of us veterans have taken to writing poetry for its personal therapeutic value, since nothing that we ever say or do contributes one iota to stopping the predictable, cylcic insanity once America's credulous, crypto-fascist "government" again sets out to ignite flammable "patrotism" in the interest of basking profitably in the conflagration's heat and reddish glow. Hence:
"Soldier's Soldier"
Scapegoat of the king's ambition
Hostage to the prince's crime
Sent upon a madman's errand
Soldier of another time
Sworn to do as he is bidden
Not to think of why he came
From himself his purpose hidden
Soldier by another name
Searching for a mystic evil
Ever just a war away
Always beaten, not defeated
Back to fight another day
Battles always won, but cheated
Of the promised victory
Never lost but just depleted
Army of our history
Kill the chicken; scare the monkey
Centipede is dead, not stiff
Off to far Cathay he marches
Soldier diving off a cliff
War not done but just abated
Peace the only thing to fear
Power's hunger never sated
Soldier's orders never clear
Dragon's teeth by Cadmus planted
Sprung from battle's plain full grown
Men who kill them all if doubtful
Heathen gods will know their own
Burn the village, clear the jungle
Save them from themselves at least
Make excuses for the bungle
Soldier then becomes the beast
Wounds still fresh and redly bleeding
Bound up with a filthy rag
Something shapeless once a husband
Stuffed into a plastic bag
Squatting in the dusty swelter
Widowed woman once a wife
Never more to know the shelter
Of a tranquil married life
Head thrown back in boundless grieving
Mouth agape with soundless woes
Tears and snot now glisten, mingling
Coursing down from eyes and nose
Anguished face a tangled curtain
Clotted, matted, raven hair
Almond eyes with sight uncertain
Weeping pools of deep despair
Do not knock this war we're having
It's the only one we've got
Better dead than red we tell them
Mouthing slogans; talking rot
Fight them over there they tell us
Rather that than fight them here
Just invent some casus bellus
Danger's best that's never near
Ozymandias' sneering statue
Crumbled in the desert bare:
Look upon my works, you mighty
See their ruin and take care
Told to teach and be creative
Soldier eager, bright and young
Learned instead and then went native
Speaking now an ancient tongue
Only they will now receive him
Who see not his bloodstained hand
None will hear for he can't speak it
Stranger to his own lost land
Bringing with him what he carried
Losing only what he bought
To the cause no longer married
Soldier doing what he ought
Shipped away like so much baggage
Not to choose the things he's done
Often bad and sometimes better
Soldier not the only one
Now he comes home like the others
Breathless lips and eyes shut fast
Lain to sleep beside his brothers
Soldier's soldier to the last
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2005
March 17, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The soldiers and their parents I talked to said they wanted to go home because they hated Iraq, the Iraqi people, and their own leadership for not letting them fight, for insisting upon rules of engagement which placed them unnecessarily in mortal danger.
I have no way of deciding which views are the most common or whose perceptions are most accurate. I do know that all past wars, including those we consider just, have been terribly brutal.
March 17, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The soldiers and their parents I talked to said they wanted to go home because they hated Iraq, the Iraqi people, and their own leadership for not letting them fight, for insisting upon rules of engagement which placed them unnecessarily in mortal danger.
The same things were said by some about Vietnam--that doesn't make the sentiment true.
March 17, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same things were said by some about Vietnam--that doesn't make the sentiment true.
That also applies to the sentiments of the Winter Soldiers.
March 17, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most Iraqis, according to the polls, favor attacks on US troops, so soldiers are in "mortal danger" in the vicinity of any Iraqis. All Rules of Engagement, which limit the action a soldier may take against a hostile or potentially hostile enemy, bump up against this fact. It's not the soldier's fault that he's in this predicament. The government put him there.
Marines have been acquitted for the Haditha massacre, where 24 Iraqis of all ages were killed, and there was a cover-up, because the Marines were operating in the fog of war (my phrasing). According to reports there have been many other similar incidents which have not been reported. The problem is the war, not the Marines.
March 17, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most Iraqis, according to the polls, favor attacks on US troops, so soldiers are in "mortal danger" in the vicinity of any Iraqis. All Rules of Engagement, which limit the action a soldier may take against a hostile or potentially hostile enemy, bump up against this fact.
For all practical purposes, correct.
It's not the soldier's fault that he's in this predicament. The government put him there.
Correct again. It's the soldier's duty to do what his government tells him to do, which is to fight and win a war against enemies of the state (as defined by the government).
But the soldiers I spoke to, and their parents, did not have any problem with that. The Winter soldiers did.
March 17, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction. Kurds are Iraqis and your statement does not apply to them. I'm sure there are other exceptions as well.
March 17, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
America's military has no more business in Iraq and Afghanistan today than it did in Southeast Asia more than three decades ago. America's soldiers, sailors (including Marines), and airmen may feel that they've got a license to kill foreigners simply because the American government says they do, but that self-granted license has no validity outside America. The continuing toll of dead and maimed American military personnel now coming home from the Middle East testifies to their unpopular colonial occupations.
The fifty American states need national guards in case of "homeland" natural disasters, but America does not need a standing foreign legion overseas. Ours has done nothing in the past fifty years but get itself in trouble, time and again, while enraging half a world against us and nearly bankrupting the country. Hence, Ambrose Bierce's ever-timely definition of "Army" as "a class of non-producers who defend the nation by devouring everything that might tempt an enemy to invade."
Only demobilizing at least half our inept military forces -- since they can't ever seem to FINISH anything -- and cutting the bloated Pentagon/Intelligence budgets by a similar proportion can possibly render our gold-plated Armed Farces perhaps capable of handling the next nineteen unarmed fanatics who begin their suicidal airline pilot training at America's own flight simulator schools.
The time has long-since passed for pulling the funding plug on America's senseless Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism. Our "warrior" wards-of-the-state can then seek gainful productive employment in the private sector, occasionally generating tax revenues instead of constantly depleting them for no worthwhile purpose.
March 18, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the answer is both straightforward and ugly. The press does not pursue stories of alleged war crimes (at least when they are frankly presented as alleged war crimes) very vigorously or very far, because the way to stop them would be the prosecution of the criminals and the payment of reparations.
Everything suggests at least the distinct potential that the scope of such an undertaking would require something along the lines of Nuremburg, except with less situational selectivity, for anything close to justice to be achieved.
No one, press or public, wants to admit this possibility, because to do so would be to admit that we, the people, are, in effect, good Germans. And that would be the national-identity narrative equivalent of taking care of several seasons of "Dallas" by making them the dream of a single character. There's no mechanism for it in reality, or in realpolitik.
I'm a good German, and I admit it in the cliched, step-one spirit. ("Admit that you have a problem.") But there's certainly no precedent for the single-anonymous-admission-united-shall-never- be-defeated having resulted in success, as far as I'm aware. So, absent widespread agreement with the above analysis (which I don't expect it to meet), in realpolitik terms, I don't think there is a solution either.
March 18, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
All three presidential candidates have decided that the war must continue; consequently, the media will play along because they have an agenda of their own. Beltway journalists are already lining up and waging PR campaigns of their own to ensure a spot at the daily White House press briefings of the new administration.
Who wants to make political enemies at this point?
I think it was in the movie Scarface where one of the lessons being preached to Tony Montana was, "never underestimate the greed of the other guy."
March 18, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
America's military has no more business in Iraq and Afghanistan today than it did in Southeast Asia more than three decades ago
Here's something you should read. It's by William Polk...whom Taplin cites on another thread for different reasons.
Polk, an expert on Iraq and the Middle East, wrote this in 1999, about a year and a half before 911. In it he paints a picture of Iraq as seen by our government at that time.
It fills in the blanks for me, helps explain why the Bush administration chose Iraq when our attempts to catch Osama in Afghanistan failed. I can't say that it will work for you but its certainly worth reading.
Remember. Isolationism hasn't been a viable option since the end of WWI...if it ever was.
March 18, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, let me give you all the short version. Polk is selling a foreign policy panacea, as people of his class are wont to do. Polk had previously tried to sell it directly to Clinton's administration, several months previous, but Clinton didn't buy. Polk now attempts to sell to the public, or anyone willing to read it.
And what is Polk's foreign policy panacea? Cutting to the chase, Polk argues that Saddam Hussein cannot be gotten rid of and will continue to be a bad guy. However, he can be dealt with, particularly through his fear of Iran. Polk's solution is to sponsor a regional wmd free zone and guarantee the security of all borders. Polk also argues for ameliorating sanctions and bombing in order to improve the lives of Iraqi people and allow for the creation of incentives.
At the end of the day, it's pretty thin gruel. Workable perhaps, with various caveats. I really don't understand how Israel fits into his wmd free zone. But his heart is in the right place.
But before we get there, Polk puts on a whole dog and pony show, citing the political history of Saddam Hussein (warlike), his personal character (bad), his goals (world domination or some equivalent, basically evil for the sake of evil), the current situation (untenable obviously, since the whole point of his article is to argue for a new policy. He can't very well say it's satisfactory.) and the pursuit of wmd's (relentless and unstoppable).
Polk reviews various options for dealing with Saddam Hussein, to greater or less insight.
For instance, option 1 is assassinating Hussein. Which at first seems like a great idea, but it turns out that its difficult, illegal, immoral and probably wouldn't get a better regime in Iraq.
The second and third options are weapons inspections and sanctions. What was being done at the time, and what was actually working. What the evidence of the day showed was working. What turns out to have worked extraordinarily well. Polk assures us that these are not viable options because a) Saddam will not be deterred, he's baaaaaaad! and b) The US lacks the will power to keep it up.
Sadly, it's not the most persuasive part of Polk's paper, even at the time it was written. In hindsight of course, it was utterly and hideously wrong, substituting the received wisdom of beltway scuttlebutt for anything that might have actually involved actual critical thinking.
In a nutshell, Polk acknowledges that nothing is found. But he claims biological weapons can be made in a kitchen, nuclear weapons components can be bought at Home Depot, and Saddam is a baaaaad guy who has lots of strategic reasons to want wmds. In terms of his weapons claims... scary nonsense. His geostrategic analysis... unsophisticated.
In the end, Polk attributes the absence of evidence to the inherent duplicity of Saddam Hussein and of the Iraqi people, even of the arab nature...
There's a couple of little bon mots which is worth plucking out and putting up on display:
Because all Arabs are subject to arms inspectors, doncha know. Ah, the condescending prejudice of the American thinking class in the morning, it smells like... bullshit.
Now if you ask me, these passages go right up to the border of outright racism. On the other hand, if you were to ask an Arab or an Iraqi, he might be of the opinion that they go well past that borderline, and are flatly racist. Decide for yourself. Me, I'm content to call it superficial and condescending.
But let's return to our discussion of Polk's main argument on this point. Because Iraq is so naturally duplicitous, the absence of evidence of wmds is really proof of wmds. Yes folks, like so many in America's thinking class, Polk has disappeared up his own sphincter, and is now sending out postcards.
Anyway, option 4 is invading and occupying Iraq, which Polk predicts to be a quagmire, although he doesn't quite get how much of one it turned out to be. Still, I'll give him points for this obvious insight. And he does note that the Iraqi exiles, Chalabi, Allawi etc., might be less popular than they claimed.. not a big stretch, but I'll give it to him.
Option 5 is Isolation. Which is a total non-starter doncha know.
Which takes us merrily round to Polk's magical solution, which I spoke of at the beginning and he saves to the end.
Absent from Polk's narrative is any mention of a connection between Iraq and terrorism, or Iraq and Al Quaeda, largely because there wasn't one and everyone knew it. So this hardly gives one insight into the post 9/11 American narrative.
On the other hand, Polk's 'solution' speaks to a broader narrative of regional transformation and enlightenment, guaranteeing security, reducing fear and aggression, improving lives and through this project liberalizing and modernizing the region.
Bush's post 9/11 'solution' for the region also envisions regional transformation, but this is achieved through violent invasion, supporting terrorists, efforts at regime change, endless threats, sanctions, fear, aggression and punishment. On the surface of it, there's not much resemblance to Polk. And even viewed through the lens of 9/11 it doesn't seem all that rational, but there you go.
So what are we to make of Polk's writing then and now based on two articles mentioned? It's remarkable how utterly conventional it is. The man speaks, not simply the obvious, but the commonplace. In short, the articles can be relied upon in to simply voice whatever opinions are commonplace at the time of writing. Voice of the elite, with all that is good and bad implied therein.
Still, this is hardly a survey of the entirety of the man's work, and even the immortal Babe Ruth flubbed a few swings.
March 18, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFL
What a class act, all the way. LOL.
PS: My html was correct. ;)
March 18, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"W War is $well"
www.ilovepoetry.com/viewpoem.asp?id=94859
Ahhh - sooo romantic?
March 19, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Abdul Amir was referring to crimes committed by American soldiers in Vietnam as described by the Winter Soldiers of 1971.
March 19, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pandora Schmuck Laden Deutschland, Armband,pandora, Anhänger, Ohrringe, Onlineshop,pandora armband, weltweiter Versand.
August 18, 2010 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
d Afghanistan veterans on display painted a horrifying picture that has gotten absol
p://www.subobags.com/" target="_blank">bags manufacturer
August 24, 2010 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat
March 2, 2011 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v iscsi, iscsi rhel5
April 11, 2011 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability computing
May 4, 2011 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink