Greg Mitchell's Blog, page 219

Public Ed. on 'NYT' Syria Coverage

Margaret Sullivan again proves her worth, raising questions (her own and from readers) about NYT's coverage of the run-up to the coming attack on Syria.  I've done this for awhile (months) on blogs and Twitter and as recently as today, noting Michael Gordon's return to the top of the home page--remember, he was Judy Miller's co-author on some of her worst Iraq pieces.  Anyway, Sullivan suggests that the paper's editorial page has been pretty cautious but its news pages too often seem to be seeing things through the eyes of the insiders and the administration. "While The Times has offered deep and rich coverage from both Washington and the Syrian region, the tone cannot be described as consistently skeptical."  (Note: My book on how the Times and others failed on Iraq, So Wrong for So Long.  My other WMD-related book: Atomic Cover-up.)

Quote of the day from the Times' number two editor, Dean Baquet, on the paper blowing Iraq WMD coverage and helping to get us into ten-year war:  "It was a long, long, time ago." Well, his family, I can report, does serve great food at JazzFest in NOLA, from their eatery.  Trout Baquet is great.

Did We Know About Chem Attack in Advance?

Whoops.  U.S. claiming it knew of preparations for chem attack in Syria three days before it happened.  Of course, could be blowing smoke, so to speak, but raises question:  Why didn't we notify Syria's rebels.  They get it, apparently, as this makes clear, from Foreign Policy.

Kerry on Syria

My report on his address just now, as it happened, starting at 12:59.  Full document from White House now out.

--Releasing unclassified findings.  "As clear as they are compelling...I'm not asking you to take my word for it.  Read for yourself" from "thousands of sources." Assad regime inflicted it.  "Our intelligence community" probed and "it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience.  We will not repeat that moment." So releasing lot for you to judge.  But some only to be released to Congress.  "So some things we know we cannot talk about publicly."

--So what do we know?  Assad has largest store of chem weapons and has "used them multiple times this year," though on lower scale.   And we know they wanted to rid suburbs of rebels.  And know they had people "on ground preparing for this" three days before.  And "we know" where rockets launched and when and where they landed.  And "we know" as does the world that "all hell broke loose in the social media."   Thousands of reports from 11 sites. And reports from doctors.

--At least more than 1400 killed including 426 children.   "This is the indiscriminate horror of chemical weapons...this is what Assad did to his own people."   And we confirmed a "senior official" knew this.  Kerry personally asked them to let UN in but they bombed area instead for four days.   When UN inspectors finally gained access it was "restricted and controlled" [he does not mention that it was partly or largely by the rebels].

--Repeatedly says "we know" and "these are the facts."  So only question is "what to do." Refers to "consequences" and "red line" and treaties.  "It matters to OUR security" and Israel and other friends who "live just a stiff breeze from Damascus."  They need to know where chem weapons are.

--Matters to our security to do something because everyone "watching" if our word means anything and if Syria "can get away with it"--and so maybe they too can get away with bad stuff.  "What is the risk of doing nothing?"   Live in world where "thug" like Assad gasses own people and we do nothing?  So risk from others then.  Mentions Iran getting nukes, Hezbollah, North Korea. Keep mentions "stopping" Assad from future use [is this possible? no].

--Answers question of "who we are.  We are the United States of America."   This "crime against conscience, against humanity...this matters to us.  Matters to who we are, and to leadership, and our credibility in the world.  It matters if nothing is done.  It matters if world speaks out in condemnation and nothing done."  Cites others speaking out (but none of them taking action, BTW).  Mentions our "oldest ally, the French"--what a switch.

--"What will we do?  President Obama believes in the United Nations."  And great respect for the inspectors.  But UN will not affirm who used the weapons. "The UN can't tell you anything we haven't already shared with you and that we already know."  But we'll keep talking to Congress, our allies and public.  But Obama "will make decision based on our OWN interests."   We are all tired of war but 'fatigue" does not absolve us.

--No "boots on the ground," limited and tailored "to insure that a despot's use of chemical weapons is held responsible."  But also committed to "diplomacy" and "political" and "deeply committed to getting there."   No regime change. Ends, 17 minutes long.

Wolf Blitzer: No doubt know we will launch, but when?  "Fairly soon" all agree.  And CNN switches to amped-up war coverage with generals and experts on board talking about targets, number of missiles, etc.

Bombing Chem Sites: More Harm Than Good?

The Associated Press, not always exactly bold, has had a few tough-minded piece on the Syria crisis this week, capped today by this one, which they have headlined at their own site:  "Experts:  Don't Bomb Chemical Weapons Sites in Syria."  A welcome shift from the usual he said/she said.  Mike Calderone at Huff Post with eye-opener on possibly why AP has been tough:  reporters were reminded of Iraq WMD failures.  Latest from AP opens:

You simply can't safely bomb a chemical weapon storehouse into oblivion, experts say. That's why they say the United States is probably targeting something other than Syria's nerve agents.  But now there is concern that bombing other sites could accidentally release dangerous chemical weapons that the U.S. military didn't know were there because they've lost track of some of the suspected nerve agents.

Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons — purposely or accidentally — would likely kill nearby civilians in an accidental nerve agent release, create a long-lasting environmental catastrophe or both, five experts told The Associated Press. That's because under ideal conditions — and conditions wouldn't be ideal in Syria — explosives would leave at least 20 to 30 percent of the poison in lethal form.

UK Says No to Obama

After wonderful long debate--which we'll never see in our Congress, to our shame--the British Parliament just voted down okay to hit Syria, 285-272 (and the debate didn't seem that close).  Just as important, Cameron said he would abide by it.  One member shouts, "Resign!"  Setback for Tories. The Guardian blog:

Ed Milband stands up on a point of order.

He asks for an assurance that the govenrment will not use the royal perogative to start military intervention.

Cameron says he believes in respecting the will of the House.

He says he "gets" the message.

When Parody Meets Reality

Andy Borowitz at The New Yorker:

Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”

“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”

“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

Booing Bob Revisited

Just came across this free online recording of one of the most infamous Dylan concerts ever.  The world well remember the controversy when he "went electric" at Newport in the summer of 1965 but how many know that his very next concert, when he really unveiled his rock persona (in second half of concert), took place on August 28 in Forest Hills and that the crowd would be the most critical and dangerous ever, as Al Kooper and Greil Marcus have testified. 

No video of this ever but now here's a crappy but listenable sound recording.  For a flavor of the angry responses to electric Dylan from a large part of the crowd check out the Intro and the Intermission comments (with Murray the K), and then at end of songs in second half when there's a lot of booing and so forth.  The band includes Robbie Robertson on guitar and Levon Helm on drums.  (Note: I see Dylan live in Buffalo a few months later and protestors brought cowbells.)  Watch Harvey Brooks, the bass player, talk about it here.  Here's a Wikipedia account:

Photographer Daniel Kramer, who accompanied Dylan to the Forest Hills concert, wrote: "Dylan held a conference with the musicians who were going to accompany him in the second half of the concert. He told them that they should expect anything to happen—he probably was remembering what occurred at Newport. He told them that the audience might yell and boo, and that they should not be bothered by it. Their job was to make the best music they were capable of, and let whatever happened happen."

Musician Tony Glover, in his liner notes for the Bob Dylan Live 1966 album, quotes a contemporary account of the concert from Variety: "Bob Dylan split 15,000 of his fans down the middle at Forest hills Tennis Stadium Sunday night... The most influential writer-performer on the pop music scene during the past decade, Dylan has apparently evolved too fast for some of his young followers, who are ready for radical changes in practically everything else... repeating the same scene that occurred during his performance at the Newport Folk Festival, Dylan delivered a round of folk-rock songs but had to pound his material against a hostile wall of anti-claquers, some of whom berated him for betraying the cause of folk music."

Shooting the Teacher

From longtime ace blogger Digby, worth quoting in its entirety, see original here.
***

You cannot make this stuff up:

Arkansas state Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson (R), who is leading an effort to give guns to school personnel, accidentally shot a teacher during an "active shooter" drill earlier this year, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports.

"The experience gave Hutchinson some pause, but he still supports giving schools the authority to decide how best to secure their campuses."

Luckily the gun that shot the teacher was only loaded with rubber bullets so no harm no foul. (If we can only get all the armed lunatics to use them too we can arm everybody and have shoot-out all day long with no consequences!) Just because you've proved in living color that flying bullets from the "good guys" can harm innocent people exactly as flying bullets from the "bad guys" do, doesn't mean that you should change your opinion about everybody and their grandmother packing heat at all times. Just take a pause, stick your fingers in your ears and sing lalalalalala!

Update:  Oh dear God.  I've just been informed that Jeremy Hutchinson is the nephew of Asa Hutchinson, the former Impeachment manager, DEA chief, Head of Birder enforcement and ... current leader of the NRA's "arm the teachers" task force.

Norman Rush Returns

NYT Magazine with major feature this Sunday, posted today, on Norman Rush, author of one of my favorite novels, Mating, and also a semi-neighbor (he lives up the road a piece here in my county near the animal shelter where we got our beloved cat).   We have a bit of correspondence years ago.   He only writes a book every ten years or so, and happily a new one is about to come out.   Like me he often refers to "my beautiful wife."

The First Attack Ads on the Screen: Courtesy Irving Thalberg!

The election season uproar over negative campaign ads will return next year for sure.  But it may surprise most people to learn that the first attack ads on the screen date back well before TVs were in nay homes.  Yes, it happened in 1934,  with faux newsreels produced by MGM's saintly Irving Thalberg to defeat the Democratic nominee for governor of California--none other than ex-socialist writer Upton Sinclair (who swept the primary on August 28) as detailed in my award-winning book "The Campaign of the Century" and in brief video below: