Liberal Oasis
DONATE TO THE OASIS | ARCHIVES | HOME | MANIFESTO | CONTACT THE OASIS
BOOK OF THE MONTH: "THE BEST DEMOCRACY MONEY CAN BUY"
INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR: GREG PALAST

GET TRUTH

Alternet

American Prospect

Black Commentator

Consortium News

In These Times

Intervention

Mother Jones

The Nation

The New Republic

The Progressive

Progressive Populist

Salon

Tom Paine

Utne Reader

Washington Monthly

GET BLOGGED

Altercation

Bartcop

Body and Soul

Joe Conason

Counterspin

Eschaton

Nathan Newman

Ruminate This

The Sideshow

Talk Left

Talking Points Memo

Tapped

Terminus

Thinking It Through

GET ACTIVE

ActNow!

The Email Activist

MoveOn

True Majority

GET COMMUNITY

Democratic Underground

Democrats.com

Institute for Global Communications

Smirking Chimp

Unanswered Questions

GET INSIDE THE SYSTEM

The Hill

Media News

The Note

Open Secrets

Political Wire

GET LEGISLATION

Write your U.S. Rep

Write your Senator

Or call Congress
202-224-3121

GET WONKY

Applied Research Center

Center for Policy Alternatives

Commonweal Institute

Economic Policy Institute

Institute for Policy Studies

Institute for Women's Policy Research

Moving Ideas Network

OMB Watch

GET A BUDGET

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Concord Coalition

National Priorities Project

GET RURAL

Center for Applied Rural Innovation

Center for Rural Affairs

Center for Rural Development

Center for Rural Strategies

Center for Rural Studies

GET MEDIA ANALYSIS

Daily Howler

FAIR

Lying Media Bastards

Media Study

Media Whores Online

Media Transparency

PR Watch

Take Back The Media

We Want The Airwaves

GET ELECTION ANALYSIS

Daily Kos

MyDD

GET POLLS

Democracy Corps

Polling Report

Prof. Pollkatz

Public Opinion Watch

GET MORE BLOGGED

BusyBusyBusy

MaxSpeak

onegoodmove

P.L.A.

Reading & Writing

Rittenhouse Review

Skippy

Soundbitten

TBogg

Testify

The Watch

GET LOCAL

SF Bay Guardian

Texas Observer

Village Voice

WHO NEEDS DRUDGE

Antiwarmonger

BuzzFlash

Common Dreams

Cursor

Make Them Accountable

Narco News

The Screed

Smudge Report

Truthout

Unknown News

USNewsLink

Working For Change

GET BUSH

AWOL Bush

Bushwatch

DubyaDubya.net

DubyaSpeak

GWBush.com

Hated

Whitehouse.org

GET JUDGES

Alliance For Justice

American Constitution Society

Independent Judiciary

GET FOREIGN POLICY

Brookings Institution

Carnegie Endowment

Carter Center

Center for Defense Information

Fourth Freedom Forum

Henry L. Stimson Center

9-11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows

Peace Action

Traprock Peace Center

Veterans Against the Iraq War

World Policy Institute

GET HOMELAND SECURITY

Century Foundation

GET FREEDOM

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch

GET LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE

Death Penalty Information Center

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

FIGHT CRIME

Fortune Society

National Center on Institutions & Alternatives

Sentencing Project

GET LEFT

Bear Left

Blog Left

Broad Left

Lean Left

The Left Coaster

Left Leaner

The Lefty Directory

So Left

Turn Left

Upper Left Coast Review

We're Left, They're Wrong

GET META-BLOGGED

Best of the Blogs

Progressive Gold

GET GOOD GOVT

Center for Public Integrity

CitizenWorks

Common Cause

Public Citizen

GET STILL MORE BLOGGED

The Agora

Archpundit

Bloviator

Coherence Theory
of Truth

Easy Bake Coven

Groupthink Central

Homodrome

Hullabaloo

Liquid List

Orcinus

Pandagon

Seeing The Forest

Semi-Daily Journal

GET DAILY

Daily Enron

Daily Review

Daily Outrage

Ed's Daily Rant

GET GREEN

Climate Ark

The Detroit Project

Environmental Defense

Environmental Media Services

Natural Resources Defense Council

Sierra Club

What Would Jesus Drive?

GET STATEHOOD

DC Vote

GET LAW BLOGGED

Balkinization

Cooped Up

Ignatz

Is That Legal?

GET GUN CONTROL

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Violence Policy Center

GET LOCAL BLOGS

Blog St. Louis (MO)

Left In The West (MT)

Off The Kuff (TX)

People's Republic
of Seabrook (TX)

Politics in the Zeros (CA)

Scoobie Davis (Hollywood)

Soapbox Canyon (AZ)

South Knox
Bubba (TN)

To The Barricades (NE)

Wyeth Wire (SC)

STOP SCREWING THE POOR

Class Struggle

Living Wage Resource Center

National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support

National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling

Welfare Information Network

GET GLOBALI-
ZATION

Capital Ownership Group

50 Years Is Enough

Reclaim Democracy

GET SOME OF THEM BLOGS

Better Rhetor

Blue Streak

CalPundit

Electrolite

Free Pie

Hauser Report

Interesting Times

Into the Breach

Liberal Desert

Long Story; Short Pier

Mark A.R. Kleiman

Musings & Meanderings

Pontificator

Public Nuisance

ReachM High Cowboy Network Noose

Roger Ailes

The Talking Dog

Ted Barlow

Uppity Negro

GET RETIREMENT SECURITY

AARP

Nat'l Cmte to Preserve Social Security & Medicare

Social Security Network

GET HOLLYWOOD

The Creative Coalition

GETTIN' BLOGGY WITH IT

A Side Note

Ain'tNoBadDude

American Samizdat

Anonymous Blogger

Daily Brew

Gamers Nook

The Hamster

Hegemoney

HugoZoom

Joe Kenehan

Mfinley

Mousemusings

Noosphere Blues

Random Thoughts

Sassafrass

Shadow of the Hegemon

Shock and Awe

T.C. Mits

An Unenviable Situation

Vanitysite

WampumBlog

William Burton

GET IT ALL

eRiposte

GET OUT OF THE OASIS

The Flaming Moderate

Leading With The Left
The daily view from the oasis

March 28, 2003 PERMALINK
The Most Pathetic "Resignation" Ever
(posted March 28 12:45 AM ET)

After The New Yorker nailed Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle for a conflict of interest, Perle lashed out and threatened a lawsuit.

But after the NY Times uncovered a second conflict of interest, and a congressman moved to formally investigate, more petulance just wouldn't do.

So Perle quit. Sort of.

In an attempt to kill the story and remove the building pressure, Perle announced he was resigning, snagging, at least initially, the headlines he sought.

But many of the early headlines were wrong. He's not leaving the DPB altogether, just giving up the chairmanship.

Which means he still maintains his security clearance and his access, the tools he needs to leverage more sweetheart deals.

And he also remains bound to the same federal ethics rules.

The step down is no great sacrifice. He has milked all he can out the chairmanship anyway.

He got the war he has long craved, and raised his public profile (and probably his price) along the way.

The one tangible loss was Perle's other announcement, that he would give up his fees for his Global Crossing work and donate them to military families victimized by the war.

But that's merely a cheap way to gain sympathy while trying to duck guilt. You can be sure that wasn't his initial plan for the expected $1.3M payday.

(CORRECTION Mar. 28 10 AM ET -- Please excuse the fuzzy math above. The deal was not for $1.3M, but for $725K, with $600K to be paid only if Global Crossing won the government approval it is seeking. Perle has not confirmed the figures, but said yesterday that he wouldn't take any additional pay if the approval is granted.)

Besides, there's no "charity" exemption to federal ethics rules.

Also, Global Crossing is only one of the three deals Rep. John Conyers wants to investigate. Perle's donation aims to distract attention from the other two.

Self-serving half-measures like these usually fail to quell burgeoning scandals.

Instead, they tend to attract more media attention, more questions and more problems.

Some folks never learn. The way out of scandal is to ╬fess up, fall on the sword and apologize.

But those who have a history of skirting the rules often don't have the humility to do the smart thing.

March 27, 2003 PERMALINK
More Tax Cut Follies
(posted March 27 12:45 AM ET)

LiberalOasis spoke too soon.

Last week, Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) scuttled a proposal from Senate moderates to scale back Dubya's really giant $726B tax cut to a merely giant $350B.

Even though most Dems were supportive, LO praised the defeat, since it would keep Dem fingerprints off the inevitable fiscal disaster.

But this week, key moderate Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) played Hollings -- revising the proposal to address one of his key concerns.

Hollings flipped, the Dems went along, and now they're on record supporting an irresponsible tax cut.

But all is not lost.

First, this is not the final say. The budget resolution now goes to a House-Senate conference.

The House bill kept the Bush tax cut intact, and conference will be packed with Bush loyalists.

And since two Senate GOP moderates who voted with the Dems have already said they'll vote for whatever comes out of the conference, there's no incentive for conferees to hold the number down.

That means it is probable that the tax cut will end up close to the fat $726B figure, and Dems will most likely vote against the final budget plan.

(Also, note that the Senate Dems voted against the full budget package one day after approving the $350B tax cut provision.)

So the Dems should end up with their hands clean.

Second, the vote further shows that the Dems are willing to stand up to Bush even during a war.

This may have been a misguided manifestation of that defiant attitude, but it still bodes well for future legislative battles.

RETRACTION

On two separate occasions, LiberalOasis attributed this Balkans war quote to Trent Lott: "We can support the troops without supporting the president."

But LiberalOasis recently concluded it has no evidence that this quote is accurate, even though it can be found on several web sites.

This week, a reader emailed LiberalOasis looking for a primary source for the quote.

After thoroughly searching Google and Lexis/Nexis, LO came up empty.

Furthermore, the DNC recently released a handy 7-page report of GOP criticism of Clinton during the Kosovo conflict. But the alleged Lott quote isn't there.

Of course, if anyone can send in proof, LiberalOasis will happily retract the retraction.

March 26, 2003 PERMALINK
Bay of Basra?
(posted March 26 1:30 AM ET)

Predicting anything in the midst of war is a sucker's game.

But LiberalOasis has a baaaad feeling about Basra.

BBC, FOX and CNN, among others, reported yesterday that the hoped-for uprising by Shiite Iraqis against Saddam's forces had begun in Basra.

That's what the Bushies wanted to hear. In theory.

But at a Rumsfeld briefing yesterday afternoon, a reporter posed an ominous question:

Mr. Secretary, there is reported to be a popular uprising in Basra, but the popular uprising apparently is not only targeting some of the Iraqi forces but also some of the coalition forces... Can you comment...?

Rumsfeld didn't answer directly, but the questioner seems to be on to something.

MSNBC.com quoted a "senior U.S. official" with this assessment:

At this point, it is premature. The nature and extent of [the uprising] remains unclear. You can describe it as chaotic.

Remember that part of the Iraqi Shiite opposition is backed by another leg of the "Axis of Evil" -- Iran.

And an Iraqi Shiite leader, currently in Iran, gave a warning to the US yesterday:

Coalition forces are welcome in Iraq as long as they help the Iraqi people get rid of Saddam's dictatorship, but Iraqis will resist if they seek to occupy or colonize our country.

The world does not approve of any colonialism and occupation and we will take peaceful measures in this respect at the beginning, but we will use force later.

Knight Ridder's report indicates the warning and the uprising are related:

Some reports said the uprising was the work of an Iranian-backed group that favored establishing an Islamic republic...

... Many [Shiites] say they are not convinced the United States can oust Saddam or create a democratic Iraq that will protect their rights...

...Other Shiites worry about the impact of Western attitudes in a post-Saddam Iraq. They question whether it is wise to align with the United States, which they fear could occupy Iraq for a long time.

Furthermore, while the Brits were emphasizing that Saddam's army was firing at fellow Iraqis in Basra, locals may also be angry at coalition violence.

From MSNBC.com:

Al-Jazeera television quoted Iraqi medics on Saturday as saying 50 people [in Basra] were killed in U.S. bombings.

The...network also broadcast grisly footage of civilian casualties in Basra, including a dead child with a horrible head wound ¸ a picture that aroused anger across the Arab world.

Another potential complication is that the US isn't directly involved with Basra right now. It's just the Brits.

That could explain why Rumsfeld yesterday sent out a mixed message to the Shiites:

I am very careful about encouraging people to rise up. We know there are people in those cities ready to shoot them if they try to rise up.

[But] anyone who's engaged in an uprising has a whole lot of courage and I sure hope they're successful.

While Tony Blair was confident and steadfast:

My message to them is that this time we will not let you down.

Perhaps this is a conscious strategy.

Many in Basra resent the US for turning its back following the 1991 uprising against Saddam, which was brutally put down. The Brits don't have the same baggage.

But the Blair-Rummy divergence could just as well be a precursor to finger-pointing by the US and Britain if Basra turns disastrous.

On top of all that, there's a major humanitarian crisis brewing, with Basra suffering a food and water shortage.

Basra was supposed to be the low-hanging fruit, the easy win that would provide PR fuel for the rest of the campaign.

Now, by falsely assuming how readily America would be embraced, Bush faces the prospect of a fiasco akin to the Bay of Pigs -- if not a military loss, then perhaps a very ugly win.

(UPDATE Mar. 26 6:30 PM ET -- The aforementioned Shiite opposition group now says there was no full-blown uprising, just "disturbances." Via Warblogging.)

March 25, 2003 PERMALINK
In Their Own Words
The Phantom Liberation
(posted March 24 11:50 PM ET)

Let the quotes speak for themselves today.

Before the war started

VP Dick Cheney, 8/26/02
As for the reaction of the Arab "street," the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are "sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans."

VP Dick Cheney, 3/16/03
Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

Ken Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02
[Brookings Institution analysts Philip] Gordon and [Michael] O'Hanlon say we must not "assume that Hussein will quickly fall." I think that's just what is likely to happen.

How would it be accomplished? [In part, by] arming the Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south and his many opponents everywhere.[emphasis added]

NY Times, 3/18/03
Military and allied officials familiar with the planning of the upcoming campaign say they hope that a successful and "benign" occupation of Basra that results in flag-waving crowds hugging British and American soldiers will create an immediate positive image worldwide of American and British war aims while also undermining Iraqi resistance elsewhere in the country.

After the war started

British Captain Patrick Trueman, 3/24/03
We were expecting a lot of hands up from Iraqi soldiers and for the humanitarian operation in Basra to begin fairly quickly behind us, with aid organizations providing food and water to the locals.

But it hasn't quite worked out that way.

There are significant elements in Basra who are hugely loyal to the regime...

...We always had the idea that everyone in this area hated Saddam. Clearly, there are a number who don't.

These are people who have been fed what the regime wants them to hear.

NY Times, 3/24/03
"No Iraqi will support what the Americans are doing here," said a man at an American checkpoint at the [Nasiriya] city limits who gave his name as Nawaf.

"If they want to go to Baghdad, that's one thing, but now they have come into our cities, and all Iraqis will fight them."...

..."I saw how the Americans bombed our civilians with my own eyes," [medical assistant Mustafa Mohammed Ali] said, and he held up a bloodied sleeve to show how he had dragged them into the ambulances.

"You want to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime?" Mr. Mustafa asked. "Go to Baghdad. What are you doing here? What are you doing in our cities?"

Unnamed middle-class Iraqi, quoted in W. Post, 3/24/03
We [in Baghdad] have 11,000 years of history. I know it sounds facetious, but it gives you resilience.

We complain about things, but complaining doesn't mean cooperating with foreign governments.

When somebody comes to attack Iraq, we stand up for Iraq. That doesn't mean we love Saddam Hussein, but there are priorities.

There are rumblings of dissent. But these rumblings don't mean: Come America, we'll throw flowers at you.

WH Press Briefing, 3/24/03
Q: Ari, given what we've been told about Saddam Hussein's regime, I think a lot of Americans are surprised that we haven't seen scenes of widespread jubilation, at least in some of the areas under coalition control. Why do you think that is?...

FLEISCHER: ...Saddam Hussein still has rather lethal pockets of resistance that have been left behind in different places. And the presence of those forces has still created some fear in the Iraqi people...

... Of course, there was a picture of an Iraqi attacking a picture of Saddam Hussein with a shoe that was widely disseminated around the world. People saw that...

FROM THE MAILBAG

Two readers write in to take issue with different parts of yesterday's column.

One argues that LO mischaracterized the motives of the legion of former military officers now working as TV analysts, when LO said:

They also are not detached observers. They are consciously trying to shape public opinion of the military, and help the Pentagon achieve its PR objectives.

The reader counters:

It is my opinion that one of the thorns in the side of the Pentagon is the fact that this war is going to be interpreted through the eyes of the Clinton military -- the same military that [Dep. Defense Sec. Paul] Wolfowitz et al. have disparaged throughout their tenure at DoD.

Gen. Clark and his compatriots, while still possessing "esprit de corps," also have an incentive to prove that their cautious strategies are the correct course of action in future conflicts.

The Rumsfeld group has rejected the advice of the career military men, and this gives them every reason to point out the flaws in the war plan.

Another reader criticizes LO for agreeing with Rumsfeld that putting POWs in front of the camera violates the Geneva Convention:

It is supposedly "humiliating" to be shown as a captive, goes the argument. But if you buy into that, the definition of what constitutes as "humiliating" starts to get fuzzy.

...It might also be construed as 'humiliating' to make the POWs do the dishes or take dictation.

Also, if merely broadcasting the reality that some unfortunate individuals are POWs, isn't it also humiliating to mention it in the print press?

...I think it would be more responsible to stick to traditional definitions of what constitutes 'humiliating' treatment re: the Geneva Convention. Media reportage, despite Anna Nicole Smith, doesn't really meet the definition.

March 24, 2003 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted March 24 1:50 AM ET)
(edited March 24 10:30 AM ET)

Sunday was a nothing less than a sharp reality check, as the talkshows discussed POWs, the grenade attack, friendly fire incidents, and renegade Turks.

But first, it's important to review how all the coverage has been so far.

The US media is essentially providing "hometown" coverage.

It is not quite functioning as a government mouthpiece.

But it is taking everything the Pentagon says at face value.

It has been extremely reluctant to show footage of civilian casualties, or any blood that would upset the American public.

The journos who have "embedded" the military have clearly become personally close to who they are covering, and much of their coverage is free PR.

At the same time, the military has "embedded" the media, with dozens of retired officers acting as analysts.

They also are not detached observers.

They are consciously trying to shape public opinion of the military, and help the Pentagon achieve its PR objectives.

Psyching Out Saddam

For example, the US media has repeated, over and over, the US line that Saddam may be dead or alive, and may not have full control of his government and military.

That is open-ended enough not to be a lie.

But there clearly is an underlying motivation for saying it. Sow confusion. Force Saddam and others above ground so they can be targeted.

There's nothing wrong with that as a goal. This is a war after all.

And to break the regime early might preclude the need for large-scale combat.

But the media's goals should not be the same as the Pentagon's. The media should be in the fact business, not the winning business.

In this case, the media can, and should, be offering more perspectives why Saddam may want to stay underground.

But the military analysts mostly, if not only, reiterate US propaganda.

And the news anchors are completely deferential to their decorated analysts.

The Umm Qasr Botch

Another example of US media tunnel vision is the initial reporting on the battle for Umm Qasr.

On Friday, the US media widely reported that the US was in control of Umm Qasr, in part because of this statement from Defense Sec. Rumsfeld:

The regime is starting to lose control of their country.

Yesterday the Iraqi information minister declared that the port of Umm Qasr is "completely in our hands," quote, unquote. Quote, "they," the coalition forces, "failed to capture it," unquote.

In fact, coalition forces did capture and do control the port of Umm Qasr and also a growing portion of the country of Iraq. The confusion of Iraqi officials is growing.

Their ability to see what is happening on the battlefield, to communicate with their forces and to control their country is slipping away.

Yet the BBC did not completely accept Rumsfeld's statement on its face, reporting on Friday that there still was Iraqi resistance.

And, also on Friday, Al Jazeera aired this assessment from a former Egyptian military officer:

...we see controversy over the landing in Umm Qasr where the Americans say they're in control of us all in Umm Qasr which is different than saying that they occupied it.

I can determine that maybe part of those two areas are under American control, but there's still a part that is under Iraqi control.

By Sunday, the US media realized that things were not so simple, and the talkshows asked their guests questions on Umm Qasr's status.

Chemical Ali: Dead or Alive?

A third example is the status of the top Iraqi official known as "Chemical Ali," for his role in the gassing of the Kurds.

On Friday, US intelligence officials told ABC that Ali was dead.

But the same day, Australia's Sydney Morning Herald reported that Ali was alive and commanding troops from Nasiriyah.

Now, US intelligence has backtracked.

Again, by not doing their own verification, the US media became, in effect, a mere conduit of propaganda.

All three examples show how the US media has been too quick to accept the US take.

Yes, there is a fog of war. It is foolish to think the media won't get anything wrong.

But that is all the more reason to not blindly trust anyone's line on anything, and to do more real reporting.

This is not to say that "hometown" coverage means the media are flat out taking orders from the Pentagon at all times.

The incident of an American soldier attacking his own with grenades at Kuwait's Camp Pennsylvania is a story that the Pentagon surely would have preferred to cover up.

Yet the story was reported, even though it is not a positive story for the US.

It is, however, a US story. And that's what "hometown" coverage gets you. Everything from one side. Little from the other.

Back to Sunday

It's impossible for LiberalOasis to report and analyze every noteworthy element of the Sunday shows. There's just too much.

Overall, the tone of the shows showed a shift from what the round-the-clock coverage had been, with more acknowledgement of the realities of war.

George Stephanopolous even mentioned Iraqi civilian casualties, though no talkshow aired any footage.

The biggest story of the day was the POWs.

The story came in fast and furious during the morning, and further showed the "hometown" nature of the US media.

CBS' Face The Nation threw up Al Jazeera footage of American POWs as the news came in, in the middle of an interview with Rumsfeld.

At first they showed some POW footage unaltered, with one prisoner giving his name.

Rumsfeld had the basic talking point down -- the Iraqis must follow the Geneva Convention and not parade POWs on TV.

Neither FTN, nor any other talkshow, mentioned that Saturday's NBC Nightly News had reporter Kerry Sanders point a camera at three Iraqi POWs, stand next to them and describe their treatment.

Later in the FTN broadcast, the Al Jazeera footage was shown again, but this time the faces were obscured and sound was off, perhaps because Rumsfeld exerted some pressure off camera.

(UPDATE Mar. 24 11 AM ET -- It wasn't Rumsfeld exerting the pressure, but DoD spokeswoman Torie Clarke.)

Afterwards, Rumsfeld went on CNN to publicly, yet subtly, pressure the media, and got a little pushback from Wolf Blitzer:

RUMSFELD: ...the Geneva Convention makes it illegal for prisoners of war to be shown and pictured and humiliated. And it's something that the United States does not do.

[On Meet The Press, Rumsfeld said it is something the US "avoids" doing.]

And needless to say, television networks that carry such pictures are, I would say, doing something that's unfortunate.

BLITZER: On the other hand you could argue...that at least their family members are seeing them alive even if they are not in the best of condition.

They could get some comfort from seeing these videotaped pictures.

RUMSFELD: You can make that argument if you wish.

BLITZER: What I hear you saying is that you're urging all worldwide news organizations...not to broadcast these images of these American POWs.

RUMSFELD: What I'm saying is that it's a violation of the Geneva Convention for the Iraqis to be -- if in fact that's what's taking place -- to be showing prisoners of war in a humiliating manner.

Later on CNN, at several points, different anchors mentioned that Al Jazeera footage showed killed as well as captured Americans, and then said:

These pictures and the interviews were disturbing. CNN has made a decision not to show the video of those killed and will instead use this single image, with no identifiable features.

After that, at the mid-afternoon briefing from the coalition's Central Command, Lt. Gen. John Abizaid publicly shamed an Al Jazeera reporter for showing the POW pictures.

That indicates this is a coordinated strategy to try to prevent such pictures airing ever again.

And it appeared to influence other US stations not to air the footage at first.

Later in the evening, at least NBC and CNN stated policies that brief snippets of POW footage would be shown if their family members were notified in advance.

That came about after one POW's mother said she saw him on a Filipino station and felt somewhat comforted.

Let's be clear. The parading of POWs on TV is wrong and appalling. It is a war crime, rightly so.

But it also is news. If it happens the American people should not be shielded from it. Period.

The rest of the world is seeing these unvarnished images in full, as they have many others already.

Al Jazeera has shown dead Americans and dead Iraqis.

It is not a flawless media outlet. But it is showing the true nature of war.

Furthermore, there was no criticism of the US military following NBC's segment featuring Iraqi POWs.

That shows this is all just "working the refs" (to steal from Eric Alterman) on a grand scale by the US. There is no moral consistency here.

Of course, "working the refs" works, at least in America. The rest of the world's free media is not so easily cowed.

That's why relying on American TV as your sole source of news will give you a limited perspective on what is happening.

There are many alternatives. One obvious one is the BBC, which streams continuous live video coverage on its web site.

And many PBS stations air BBC news nightly.

Also, check out the websites in LiberalOasis' "Get Iraq" section at the top-right of this page.

If we Americans are going to pay for war, then we have an obligation to know what it is we are paying for.

These are our soldiers in harm's way. We, as a democratic people, will participate in future decisions whether to send them into other wars. We all need to know and understand what that really entails.

Or as CNN's Nic Robertson put it on Saturday, responding to a Larry King question on why he chose his line of work:

Pursuit of the truth, Larry. It's really simple. I think that people, not only want it, they should have access to it, the truth about any situation.

Were CNN, and its brethren, listening?

The Sandbox
Humor by John Cougarstein

GET IRAQ

The Agonist

Back To Iraq 2.0

Iraq Body Count

War on Iraq (Alternet)

Warblogging

Where Is Raed?

GET HUMOR

The Boondocks

The Cougarstein Ramble

Get Your War On

Mark Fiore

Political Strikes

Ted Rall

This Modern World

Tom the Dancing Bug

GET A JOB

Idealist

Opportunity Knocks

GET ART

Ginger Young Gallery

GET MUSIC

Folkweb

Rapstation

WomanRock

GET FOOD

Eat Wild

EcoFriendly Foods

Grassland Beef

Homestead Healthy Foods

Lasater Grasslands Beef

GET COFFEE

Coffee Traders

Counter Culture Coffee

Sacred Grounds

GET MORE HUMOR

Amptoons

Bean Magazine

Betty Bowers

Bloom County

The Facer

MadKane

Michael Moore

Nothing Like The Truth

The Specious Report

Tammy Faye Starlite

GET BRITISH HUMOR

Lord Bonkers Diary

Private Eye

Viz

GET MEDIA(?)

Faux News Channel

Republican Press

PLAY A GAME

Life as a Blackman

BUY STUFF...

EcoMall

Global Exchange

Green Pages

Green People

Hybrid Car Dealers

Real Goods

Responsible Shopper

...OR DON'T

AdBusters

Boycott Action News

Buy Nothing Day

GET OFF THE GRID

Back Home

Building Green

Home Power

Off-Grid Living

Solar Panels for Energy

Source for Renewable Energy

GET FUNDING

Benton Foundation

Ford Foundation

Pew Charitable Trusts

Soros Foundation

Tides Foundation

GET PR

Communication Works

Fenton Communications

Hauser Group

McKinney & Assoc.

The SPIN Project

GET CAPITAL GAINS

Calvert Foundation

Domini Social Investments

Greenmoney Journal

Parnassus Investments

GET UNIONIZED

AFL-CIO

SEIU

UAW

GET LAID SAFELY

Advocates for Youth

Nat'l Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

Planned Parenthood

Scarleteen

GET REPRO CHOICE

Center for Reproductive Law & Policy

NARAL Pro-Choice America

GET ABORTION

National Network of Abortion Funds

GET HAPPY ANIMALS

Alley Cat Allies

ASPCA

Best Friends

Stop Declaw

Wildlife Waystation

GET GOD

American Islamic Congress

The Ba'hai Faith

Buddhist Peace Fellowship

Catholic Worker

Center for Progressive Christianity

Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy

Interfaith Alliance

Noble Causes

Shalom Center

Sojourners

Tikkun

Unitarian Universalists

United Church of Christ

Universal Life Church

GET GODLESS

American Atheists

Infidels

GET MOONIE

Moonie World

GET ANN COULTER

Ann Coulter Is a Bitch

Anti-Coulter

CoulterWatch

Dr. Limerick's Slannder

GET EQUALITY

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

Anti-Defamation League

Human Rights Campaign

NAACP

Nat'l Conf. for Community and Justice

National Council of La Raza

National Urban League

NOW

GET JUSTICE

ACLU

Brennan Center for Justice

EarthJustice

Lambda Legal Defense

Mexican American Legal Defense

NAACP Legal Defense

National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium

Native American Rights Fund

NOW Legal Defense

Southern Poverty Law Center

GET RADIO

Anshell Media

Bush Recession Radio

Democracy Now

Free Speech Radio

i.e. America Radio

Meria Heller

Mike Malloy

New Black City

Radio Free Exile

Radio Left

Radio Nation

Randi Rhodes

Ski & Skinner

Peter Werbe

GET AMERICAN

Americans for Democratic Action

Campaign for America's Future

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State

People For the American Way

GET SOMEONE ELECTED

Democratic National Committee

Emily's List

MoveOn.org PAC

Progressive Majority

21st Century Democrats

Young Democratic Candidates Network

GET PRESIDENTIAL

Joe Biden

Wesley Clark

Howard Dean

John Edwards

Dick Gephardt

Al Gore

Bob Graham

Gary Hart

John Kerry

Dennis Kucinich

Joe Lieberman

Carol Moseley-Braun

Ralph Nader

Al Sharpton

GET PRESIDENTIAL BLOGS

Draft Kucinich

Howard Dean 2004

Howard Dean in 2004 (R. Klau)

Americans For John Edwards

John Edwards For President

Students For Edwards

Texans For Joe

GET ORGANIZED

Dean 2004 Meetup

Edwards 2004 Meetup

Gephardt 2004 Meetup

Gore 2004 Meetup

Kerry 2004 Meetup

Lieberman 2004 Meetup

Sharpton 2004 Meetup

GET VPs?

Max Baucus

Evan Bayh

Bill Bradley

Tom Daschle

Gray Davis

Richard Durbin

Russ Feingold

Dianne Feinstein

Mary Landrieu

John Lewis

Gary Locke

John McCain

Jim McGreevey

Bob Menendez

Janet Napolitano

Nancy Pelosi

Bill Richardson

Kathleen Sebelius

Tom Vilsack

Mark Warner

DONATE TO THE OASIS | ARCHIVES | HOME | MANIFESTO | CONTACT THE OASIS

Liberal Oasis Logo Design: Ed Kim | Advice and Assistance: LuckyDave, Gina-Louise Sciarra and Maya Voskoboynikov | Special Thanks to Eric Alterman, Bartcop, Hated.com, MediaWhoresOnline and Smirking Chimp for their early cybersupport