Democratic Surrender Monkeys

Unconditional surrender! That is the only accurate phrase to describe Friday's passage by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives of the so-called FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill, the bastard child of House majority leader Steny Hoyer (Md) and Senate intelligence committee chair Jay Rockefeller (WVa) gives the Bush administration everything it wanted on the domestic spying front, and more! As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, the bill gives to the administration what it could not have even hoped to obtain from a Republican-led House. It greatly expands the powers of the government to spy on Americans, and in its most odious sections grants sweeping immunity to telecom companies and their Bush administration allies for breaking the existing FISA law. It retroactively excuses, and attempts to put a stamp of approval on half a decades worth of administration law breaking. It does this by placing a so-called "requirement" on the administration that makes a mockery of the rule of law and the Constitutional separation of powers. Essentially, the bill requires that existing law suits be dismissed if the telecom companies simply show that they were directed by the President or his agents to carry out the spying, and/or that the administration "certified" that it was legal! Talk about handing the fox the keys to the chicken coop. This legislation grants to serial lawbreakers the power to decide legality, and reinforces the theory perpetuated by this administration that if the President says it is legal, it is! A more dangerous, and un-Constitutional precedent can hardly be envisioned.

Moreover, the bill provides for broad secrecy surrounding the dismissal of lawsuits, the government simply having to invoke the magical phrase, "national security," to shield the details of the law breaking from the eyes of the public. The section of the bill granting this sweeping immunity is entitled, "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Orwell himself would have struggled to come up with that one, but it was apparently duck-soup for the Democratic enablers of Bush administration lawbreaking.

Let's try and get our heads around the magnitude of this capitulation. It's not that easy, so stay with me. The Democratic-controlled House just handed this stunning victory to perhaps the weakest sitting President in history; a President that can barely maintain 25% approval ratings; a President whose Party is also now widely, and justifiably reviled and rightly fearful that they will be thrown from office in large numbers come November; a President and Party that have treated the Democrats with utter disdain and contempt for almost 8 years, who have called them "traitors" and most recently referred to their presumptive presidential nominee as an "appeaser" like those who appeased the Nazis. It is this President and Party that the Democratic leadership, over the opposition of more than half of their caucus, including many committee chairmen, handed such a victory! Politics is wondrous strange indeed.

What could be the mental calculus at work in the minds of such "leaders?" Indeed it is hard to fathom how the majority Party in the House could rend itself asunder so and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One is forced to conclude that there are basically two reasons for such a wholesale capitulation. First, the current Democratic leadership is largely beholden to the same Corporate interests as the Republican Party. Put simply, the big telecoms fill many Democratic coffers with cold hard cash. And if anything is clear from the status quo in Washington it is that money talks. So, it's simply too easy for them to grant immunity and not upset the apple cart, or perhaps the gravy train is a more accurate phrase in this case. Consider the signal this sends to many Americans, that Corporate money is much more important to the Democratic Party leadership than the Constitutional freedoms of their own constituents. This is a craven and cowardly calculation if ever there was one. Second, it seems that the senior Democratic leadership are still so fearful; so cowardly and fearful. They somehow believe that surrendering the rule of law will make them look "tough on terrorism." In fact, what is plain for all to see is that it simply makes them look weak, craven and without principles or honor. That is, it makes them look just like Republicans!

The reality here is far different from the "tough on terrorism" pretext being offered by the capitulators. Passage of this legislation will not do anything to increase security against terrorism. The existing FISA law was and still is entirely adequate to enable the government to obtain the necessary intelligence to protect the Nation. Moreover, this administration's actions in the so called "war on terrorism" have not made us safer. Far from it, their reckless foreign policy has only bred more fanaticism abroad, and they have neglected common sense strategies to strengthen our domestic security posture. Even in the face of mountains of current polling data suggesting that American's attitudes are sharply opposed to the direction that this administration and its Republican Party rubber stamp have steered the country, the fossilized and inept Democratic leadership still believe that in order to win elections they must look more and more like Republicans. Since it is now absolutely clear that they will never learn this lesson, perhaps because they ultimately share most of the same priorities as the Republicans, the final remedy must be to vote the whole pathetic lot of them out of office. If you are interested in helping in this regard, check out the campaign being organized by Act Blue.

Supreme Ideologues

With another 5 - 4 decision the Supreme Court has recently upheld basic provisions of the Constitution while simultaneously sending a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" detainee policy. The Court was reviewing a challenge to the Military Commissions Act which had stripped habeus corpus rights from detainees in the wake of the Court's previous decision on detainee policies in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. This was the third ruling over a six year span in which the Court has made clear that the administration's manufactured legal "system" surrounding detentions at the Guantanamo Bay gulag is un-Constitutional (read illegal). However, after each previous rebuke the Administration was able to work with it's Republican allies in Congress to pass legislation defying the Court's decision. Shamefully, the infamous Military Commissions Act that this most recent decision strikes down was passed with significant Democratic support as well.

Justice Kennedy, who has recently become the "centrist" swing vote on the Court, joined with the more liberal Justices; Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer in arguing that, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” and asserting that the Court is the final arbiter of what the law is, not a self-styled unitary executive commander in chief. In many ways this decision was rather straightforward. The most relevant section of the Constitution, the so-called "Suspension Clause" (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2), states, "The Privilege of the Writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The great writ is a cornerstone of English law, and came about as a response to the arbitrary power of English kings to exert the right to hold anyone for as long as they liked without ever having to explain to anyone why. Indeed, the drafters of the Constitution, having recently experienced the excessive and unjust powers of a king, in this case George III, felt strongly enough to enshrine the right to habeas corpus directly into the wording of the document. The clause is quite clear, the only exigencies that might abrogate it being invasion or rebellion, neither of which situation exists today by any reasonable interpretation of those words.

One might then reasonably ask how the Court could be so divided on this apparently basic issue? It essentially comes down to the idea that one either believes in the rule of law, or the rule of men. The four Justice minority in this case; Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, have left no doubt where they stand on this notion. They have consistently supported the "theory" that Mr. Bush as commander in chief is essentially the law, and can do as he pleases. They voted as a block in all the previous detainee cases, except for the Hamdan case for which Roberts had to recuse himself, since he had previously ruled against the habeas petition while sitting on the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. So, there can be little doubt what his decision would have been had he participated. This gang of four has consistently shown where their loyalties lie, not with the Constitution, but with a political party and it's extreme rightwing, neofascist ideology that is in thrall to power, whether it be executive, governmental (as in their own power on the Court), or the private power of corporations.

In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts claimed that the Bush administration's detainee policy represented, “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” That these ostensible "protections" violate the supreme law of the land apparently carries no weight with Roberts. Moreover, the "procedures" put in place by the administration allow Bush to, by fiat, declare anyone an "enemy combatant" without a meaningful, independent judicial review. This is hardly the due process envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution when they added the Suspension Clause. And to think that we must suffer this Chief Justice for perhaps decades to come. While in his confirmation hearings Roberts pledged reasonableness and objectivity, his decisions on the Court since then suggests the exact opposite.

Of the other dissenting opinions that of Antonin Scalia was, not surprisingly, the most outrageous. Scalia argued that the decision, “warps our Constitution” and, went as far as to suggest that it will place American lives at risk, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” he argued. Of course, the only thing warped and twisted here is Scalia's logic. That a decision which restores an important right guaranteed by the Constitution represents a "warping" of it strains credulity. And isn't it ironic that Scalia, who helped halt the 2000 Florida recount that ensconced Bush in the White House, should then argue that this decision will cost more American lives, when his 2000 decision helped to set in motion the disastrous Bush presidency, that has cost many thousands of American soldiers their lives, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We can be thankful that there are still at least five Justices with some commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law, and it should be absolutely clear that the country can no longer tolerate the appointment of political idealogues to the Court. The stakes are far too high for that.

Dirty Laundry

Propaganda, from the White House? Really!? Now who would have thought that possible? Scott McClellan, one time White House press secretary, is the latest in a long string of Bush administration insiders to publicize in book form the dysfunction at the heart of the Bush inner circle. McClellan is scathing in his criticism of Bush and his top aides, in particular Condoleeza Rice, in spinning the country to war with Iraq. He also takes aim at a sycophantic and "too deferential" Washington press corps that was too quick to swallow all the bull being shoveled. While McClellan deserves some plaudits for finally coming clean, or at least beginning that process, he appears to be far too uncritical of his own complicity in propagandizing the American people. After all, for years he was the point man, the go-to-guy, the "Maytag Man" in the Bush spin team. Who can forget the seemingly endless press briefings from the White House, with McClellan standing there sweating like a bridegroom, torturing the English language in order to get his talking points spinned just right. I for one couldn't stand to listen to him for more than five minutes at a clip, so impenetrable was the dissembling.

While media coverage of McClellan's mea culpa (such as it is) has been rather significant, most of the attention has been of the tit-for-tat aspect, that is, the story has been about the "sensational" aspects of an insider coming out of the White House and criticizing the administration. Predictably, however, there has been very little additional discussion of the actual substance of McClellan's charges. This is perhaps not too surprising since a major focus of the criticism has been the media itself, so, major news outlets are not particularly keen on focusing a spotlight on their own substantial shortcomings.

However, the biggest aspect of the story that has been "missed" is that we knew all this stuff already! Essentially all of McClellan's charges have for years now been the focus of significant reporting from independent media outlets (like Democracy Now!) and the liberal blogosphere. In fact Karl Rove had the temerity to proclaim that McClellan now sounded like a "left wing blogger." Actually, that would be about right, since many such bloggers had long been documenting the propaganda campaign leading up to the war and beyond. However, if that's not "main stream" enough for you, then just consider that only a few weeks ago the "Paper of Record," published extensive reporting on the Pentagon and administration's use of retired Generals in an extensive propaganda campaign to support the Iraq war. Such propagandizing of the people by their government is of course illegal, but since when did the law ever trouble this crowd. But, you may not have been aware of that either, since this story has also been declared largely untouchable by the major outlets, for the same reason just mentioned above.

So, rather than entertaining right-wing talking heads to "debate" whether McClellan is right or not, or, in the case of Fox News, just arguing how he is wrong, the major media could simply do a little real reporting, like actually reading a newspaper, and they would find ample evidence to conclusively establish that the bulk of McClellan's charges are true. Oh, but that's right, the big media don't actually do any real reporting anymore, they just ask vacuous questions of equally vacuous pundits. Indeed, in a rare moment of candor on the Today show, three of the biggest (read, most overpaid) TV anchors recently absolved themselves of any blame as "enablers" of the Iraq war. See the post by Glenn Greenwald for a link to this rather astounding video and some insightful commentary on the complete abdication of journalistic integrity by these so-called media "heavy hitters."

Let Us Not Forget

It's hypocrisy time. Just as surely as the Sun rises and sets we can be sure that as Memorial Day approaches their will be a steady stream of political double-speak from our leaders claiming to support the troops and "honoring" their service. We can also be sure that the most egregious transgressions will come from the highest offices in the land.

Since Mr. Bush is urging all Americans to mark a moment of remembrance on Monday to honor fallen veterans, let's also take a moment to reflect on the recent past and vow to remember the following the next time this administration speaks about honoring the troops.

Let us not forget that almost 5 years ago Mr. Bush orchestrated an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that has now claimed the lives of 4,080 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Let us not forget that this was the most heinous kind of war, a war of choice. A kind of war outlawed by the UN charter.

Let us not forget that the administration's twin pillars in the argument for war; alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and alleged Iraqi ties to the 9/11 attacks were both fabrications, unsupported by any solid evidence.

Let us not forget the "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud."

Let us not forget "shock and awe," "mission accomplished," "we don't do body counts," and "bring 'em on."

Let us not forget that Mr. Bush never did complete his service commitment after being accepted in a "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard. This enabled him to avoid the draft and likely service in Vietnam.

Let us not forget that Mr. Cheney had "other priorities," as he obtained five deferments from the draft, thus also avoiding service in Vietnam. Indeed, the number of right-wing chickenhawks is quite astonishing, particularly in that they seem to be more than willing to sacrifice other peoples kids. And for all your Memorial day gift giving, consider the deck of chickenhawk playing cards.

Let us not forget that after one disastrous war, Mr. Bush seems dead set on starting another one before he leaves office.

And, come November, let us not forget the Republican Party that has been in lock-step with this criminal administration every step of the way.

A Tale of Two Clergy

Unless you've been hiding out in a cave recently you are no doubt aware of Barack Obama's "Reverend problem." Over the past few weeks selective clips and statements from past sermons given by Obama's former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright have been used against him in a textbook example of guilt by association of which Joe McCarthy himself would be proud.

Wright has been accused of "anti-American" statements, and having "destructive and divisive" notions regarding race relations in America. Obama himself has felt the need to strongly condemn Wright's statements and distance himself from his one-time pastor. However, almost all of the "buzz" around this "issue" has been the result of selective sound bites and excerpts of small portions of the Reverend's statements and sermons. Media talking-heads and pundits on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have thrown lots of mud, but they invariably fail to place the excerpted bits from Wright's speeches in the context of his entire statements, nor of the more than 200 year long--and ongoing--history of injustice suffered by blacks in the United States. It is as if the terms slavery, Jim-Crow, separate-but-equal, and red-lining never existed. This kind of historical amnesia in corporate media coverage is now so pervasive, that it is no wonder Americans can consume so much media and still learn so little.

Initially Wright did not feel the need to "go public" to try and defend himself and his church, but in the past week he has given several public interviews (one to Bill Moyers), and speeches (before the National Press Club) in an attempt to get his side of the story out. Not surprisingly, these appearances have also been "sound-bited" and excerpted, and have been seized upon by the same corporate media as "proof" of Wright's wickedness. This has also prompted Obama's strongest yet denunciation of the Reverend and his statements. So, if you've heard the approved "sound-bites" and have swallowed the standard media narrative that Wright is a certifiable "wacko," then I'm also willing to bet good money that you did not listen to any of his full statements. If not, I urge you to do so. Let's consider his recent remarks before the National Press Club (NPC). These have also been excerpted at Democracy Now, which actually presents extended parts of his address and a debate featuring perspectives from black community representatives, not the corporate punditocracy.

In his address to the NPC Wright essentially gave some historical background on black religious traditions in the United States and explained, focusing on his own church, the underpinnings and goals of his faith. While I do not personally ascribe to the religious and theological analysis of the human condition, there was not much to find objectionable in these remarks, indeed, one can argue that the black religious traditions of liberation and reconciliation--with ALL people, regardless of race--are a remarkable, and hopeful response born of a situation of bitter oppression, such as slavery. One need only contrast this with the response of some white Christian denominations in apartheid South Africa, that rather than oppose oppression, constructed theologies consistent with white supremacy and apartheid.

So, if what the Reverend actually said, could not be found particularly objectionable, then what is the source of the venom directed at him, and by association, Obama? As Wright pointed out in his remarks, the notion of reconciliation requires that the wrongs of the oppressor are acknowledged, that amends are made, and that subsequent actions demonstrate a reversal of the oppressive behavior. That is, that race relations are not simply a one way street. This I think is largely the "sin" the Reverend is being accused of, that he has the temerity to point out that while injustice persists, true reconciliation cannot occur. That, and the fact that racial injustice still persists, there can be little denying that.

After delivering his remarks, Wright answered questions, and here is where I think some of his statements and actions perhaps partly undid the positive remarks he had just made. He was a bit defensive and accusatory with his tone in responding to some of the questions, but one might also be willing to excuse such a tone given the nature of the attacks he had been subjected to over the preceeding weeks. At times Wright did seem to be enjoying the attention, and perhaps also having a chance at last to respond openly to critics this may not be to surprising. But he also simply seemed to be trying to make light of a difficult situation, and have some fun, as he tried to make the occasional joke, not always successfully! Essentially all of the questions were of the "gotcha" variety, and were largely based on assumptions and myths that are essentially unchallengeable in the mainstream media. A glaring example of this is the notion that Wright ostensibly believes that America was "responsible" for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. This has become a true "third rail" in American politics, anyone even remotely hinting at this is automatically labelled "un-American," and beyond the pale. However, this attitude completely suffocates any serious attempt to look at the question of why the United States was attacked. Obviously the situation is much more complex than, "they hate our freedoms," as Bush so simplistically put it. The point that Wright, and others, have tried to make is not that the terrorists were justified in attacking, but that the way that US foreign policy impacts other Nations and peoples is important and entirely relevant. Put very simply, if you punch someone in the nose, then it is quite possible that their response may be to punch back. Such comments meet with fierce media resistance because they challenge one of the fundamental myths propagated by US elites; that the US always acts on the world stage with the noblest of goals. Anyone still under the spell of this myth can begin by reading William Blum's, "Killing Hope" , or Chalmers Johnson's, "Blow-back," for example.

Wright has also been criticized for statements suggesting that AIDS was somehow the result of some government "plot" to harm blacks. This is indeed an unfortunate statement. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence to support it, and it does suggest a kind of paranoia with regard to government treatment of minorities. However, here again some context would have been most illuminating. Many Americans are probably unaware that there is in fact a documented, rather sordid history of medical experimentation on Black Americans, the most infamous example of which is known as the "Tuskegee Experiment". To summarize, from 1932 to 1972 the US Public Health Service (PHS) followed the progression of syphilis in about 400 black men. These men were mostly poor sharecroppers, they never gave informed consent, and were never told they had syphilis. By 1947, with the introduction of penicillin, all men still remaining in the study could have been successfully treated, yet it was not until 1972 that a PHS employee went public with information to force an end to the study. Hundreds of black men died unneccessarily, and wives and children were also infected. For other examples, see the book, "Medical Apartheid," by Harriet Washington. Given the context of this historical record we could perhaps be more forgiving with regard to Wright's unfortunate comments on AIDS.

My title suggests a second clergyman, but while most Americans now know the name Jeremiah Wright, it's very likely that many fewer know that John McCain has his own "Reverend problem," or, rather, that if the media treated McCain as they have treated Obama he WOULD have a "Reverend problem." The ecclesiastical albatross that should be hanging around John McCain's neck is the fundamentalist, evangelical Pastor John Hagee. McCain actively sought, and received the endorsement of Hagee for his White House bid. Hagee is head of the evangelical Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, and sits at the hub of a fundamentalist media empire. He is an equal opportunity offender, having denigrated Catholics with statements suggesting that Catholicism has spawned, "a theology of hate." During an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air," Hagee claimed that Muslims have a "scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews," and later in the same interview claimed that Hurricane Katrina was punishment wrought by God on the sinful city of New Orleans. He holds views that most Americans should rightly regard as deeply offensive, and is perhaps most succinctly described as a spewer of hate. Yet, unlike Obama with regard to Wright, McCain actively sought the endorsement of his Reverend, so as to solidify his standing amongst the key fundamentalist Republican voting bloc. Even more troubling, McCain did a complete flip-flop in seeking Hagee's imprimatur, as in a different political environment he once termed such evangelical demagogues as "agents of intolerance."

While McCain has gotten a little heat from the media for his association with Hagee, it has been nothing like the scrutiny afforded Wright and Obama. McCain has recently gone as far as admitting that seeking Hagee's endorsement was probably a mistake, but nevertheless still being grateful to have it (go figure). How's that for mental gymnastics! Wright and Obama could never get away with such equivocating. The double standard here is indeed stark, and is difficult to understand in other than racial terms. In the end, John McCain is white, and so is "his" Reverend, and that seems to make all the difference.

Crazy Talk

Obliterate! That's some pretty tough talk. That was the term used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when asked to describe what her response as President would be if Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons! Before discussing this further, let's get some hard facts on the table.

1) Iran does not now possess nuclear weapons, nor is it likely to in the near future.

2) Iranian officials have stated that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

3) The US intelligence community has essentially corroborated this Iranian claim, stating in a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had suspended any nuclear program.

4) On the other hand, there is a nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel. Israel is one of only four states not to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). It obtained nuclear technology with significant assistance from France, and carried out its weapons program with substantial deception. Israel's official position is that, "it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East." As it is an "open secret" that it already has, this is rather a deceitful position to maintain.

What does it say about the state of our media that candidates are even asked such a question? How could Iran, not possessing nuclear weapons, attack Israel with them? Even more astonishingly, if Iran had nuclear weapons why would it even consider attacking Israel with them? Such questioning reveals a remarkable double standard. I would go as far as to call it racism, plain and simple. It impugns the Iranians with sinister motives and aims that we would never even think of applying to ourselves or our allies. We of course like to think that we would NEVER strike first with nuclear weapons, but we are more than willing to attribute such behavior to the Iranians (and they don't even have the weapons!). This kind of thinking betrays a belief in the questioner that the Iranians are fundamentally different and "other" than us, put crudely, that they are not human. Only then would it become possible to envisage obliterating them.

And what of Clinton's response to such questioning? Are these the qualities that we want in a President, that he/she would be willing to completely wipe out another country, to almost brag about it? Actually, I would want such a person as far away from the "nuclear button" as possible. More troubling perhaps is that Clinton apparently feels that this is the kind of talk that we, the electorate, want to hear, that our Presidents will be vicious thugs on the world stage. What constituency does she feel she is appealing to with such remarks? Is she appealing to Democratic or Republican voters with such statements? In recent TV ads she has argued that the President must be "ready for anything", and that she, "has what it takes" in this regard. Is her response to the Iran question supposed to prove this to some voters? For me anyway it's done the exact opposite. This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering the Bush administration has perfected, and used to shred the Constitution and our civil liberties. No thank you, I've had more than my fill of such crazy talk.

The Meaning of Success

The war in Iraq recently entered its sixth year, and the long nightmare of the Iraqi people continues with no end in sight. After five years of carnage; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead; 4,000 US troops killed; a vast fortune spent; what has been achieved? Events surrounding the 5th anniversary shed some illuminating light on the present state of American democracy. Consider the establishment media. The present consensus narrative, endlessly reinforced by recent Bush administration media opportunities that receive front page and/or prime time coverage on the TV news networks (Fox, CNN, CBS, etc.), is that the troop "surge" is working. Cheney recently made a "stealth" visit to Iraq, and proclaimed that the war, though not without its difficulties, has been a "... successful endeavor." Bush too claimed "success" in a recent speech to Defense Department personnel at the Pentagon. If what we are witnessing in Iraq is success, then one shudders to think what failure would look like! For a less hyperbolic look at what "success" in Iraq looks like, see the sobering report by Dahr Jamail.

Of course the "success" in Iraq would not have been possible without the willing service provided by the American corporate press. Nor would it be possible for those responsible for this catastrophe to continue to claim, five years on, that "victory" is within sight if we simply "stay the course." American media's service to the State with regard to the Iraq war would make former Pravda officials green with envy. Particularly shameful in recent days was the major media coverage--or rather, the almost complete lack of it--surrounding the Winter Soldier hearings held from March 13 - 16 at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Over four days soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan gave testimony of their experiences, providing first hand, moving accounts of what American's taxes are paying for in Iraq. This was easily the most important news story concerning the Iraq war in recent months. Here we had those carrying out Bush administration policy giving first hand accounts of what they saw and did. Those actors making the history were providing direct testimony. What better way to "support the troops" than to listen to and tell their stories? The event was covered in great depth by various independent media outlets like Democracy Now and Pacifica radio, but was scarcely mentioned in the corporate press. I did not hear all the testimony myself, but was able to listen to significant portions of it. I would urge everyone to at least watch some of the testimony, which can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Just as the corporate press missed the story in the lead up to the invasion, they also missed this one. Whereas in depth reporting of the Winter Soldier hearings could have gone a long way toward showing Americans the real costs of this war, and perhaps finally forcing an end to the horrors, the so-called free press still can't seem to get it right, and remain simply a propaganda conduit for the powerful.

One of the most pernicious myths surrounding our corporate media is that they are completely free and unbiased, that they serve the people and are not beholden to the powerful. This is repeated so often that is has become virtually axiomatic, indeed, one is immediately labeled a loon to even suggest the opposite. Occasionally, however, the truth slips out. Read the summary by Glenn Greenwald of an interview that serial anchor Tucker Carlson did with Gerri Peev, the British reporter who revealed Obama aid Samantha Power's referral to Hillary Clinton as a "monster." This little exchange shows precisely the presumed relationship of the press to the powerful in contemporary America, one of subservience. It is only that dynamic that enables utter failure to be called success.