Greg Mitchell's Blog, page 42
September 12, 2014
The Cowardice of Congress---the Law-Breaking of Obama?
Today's NYT editorial is partly aimed at Congress's cowardice in not voting on Obama's new war, but aims mainly at his law-breaking on the matter--read strictly, it would almost be suggesting grounds for impeachment. And news story reveals "tepid" at best support from those in the region. Jordan rejects and wisely points to core issue in the region of Palestinians and says it will just help re-build Gaza. Editorial:
As the Pentagon gears up to expand its fight against ISIS, a fundamentalist Sunni militant group that controls large areas of Iraq and Syria, Congress appears perfectly willing to abdicate one of its most consequential powers: the authority to declare war.
The cowardice in Congress, never to be underestimated, is outrageous. Some lawmakers have made it known that they would rather not face a war authorization vote shortly before midterm elections, saying they’d rather sit on the fence for a while to see whether an expanded military campaign starts looking like a success story or a debacle. By avoiding responsibility, they allow President Obama free rein to set a dangerous precedent that will last well past this particular military campaign.
Mr. Obama, who has spent much of his presidency seeking to wean the United States off a perpetual state of war, is now putting forward unjustifiable interpretations of the executive branch’s authority to use military force without explicit approval from Congress.
When Famed 'NYT' Reporter Promoted Radiation Cover-up
William L. Laurence earned the nickname “Atomic Bill” several times over. As I’ve explored here in the past, he was Pulitzer-winning New York Times science reporter who became embedded with the Manhattan Project and followed its creation of the first atomic bombs at several sites around the United States. As the first use of the new weapon against Japan neared, he wrote several lengthy articles glorifying the Bomb and the men who made it, which were published, with overwhelming impact, by his paper (and others) starting on August 7, 1945.Then, on August 9, he observed the atomic bombing of Nagasaki from one of the support planes. Sixty-six years ago this week, he wrote about that for the Times—again, an account that expressed wonderment and pride in the death-dealing device. As always, Laurence provided colorful depictions of the bomb’s blast and visual effects with little focus on its startling radiation dangers.
Less well-known is another Laurence project, which also took place sixty-nine years ago this week, with his latest front-page story appearing on the morning of September 12, 1945.
To that point, US officials had downplayed Japanese casualties in the two atomic cities and largely pooh-poohed Japanese “propaganda” claims on the lingering effects of radiation exposure and accounts of thousands perishing from some new “plague.” A U.S. general, Thomas Farrell, had toured the ruins in Hiroshima and wrongly claimed Japanese reports of up to 100,000 killed there were wildly inflated--and that only a handful died due to radiation effects. It was the beginning of the decades-long suppression of key evidence, including all film footage shot in the two cities(as I probe in my book Atomic Cover-up).
A confluence of events on September 9, 1945, suggests that American officials, right up to the White House, had indeed initiated a public-relations campaign to counter the first rumors from Hiroshima. The War Department, after weeks of delay, finally allowed the New York Times to publish the exultant first-person account of the Nagasaki bombing mission by W.L. Laurence.
The same day, Laurence happened to be touring the Trinity test site, where the United States tested its first atomic weapon on July 16, with General Leslie Groves and physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (left, on that day, in the crater). The top-secret area finally had been opened to journalists.
Two weeks earlier, President Truman’s secretary, Charles G. Ross, had sent a memo to the War Department urging the military to recruit a group of reporters to explore the test site. “This might be a good thing to do in view of continuing propaganda from Japan,” Ross wrote.
Now General Groves, who believed the reports of radiation disaease from Japan were a "hoax," was personally escorting some of the newsmen near ground zero. His driver, a young soldier named Patrick Stout, spent several minutes in the crater of the blast and was photographed, smiling.
Laurence’s account of this visit (delayed three days until September 12 due to a censorship review) disclosed quite frankly why he and thirty other journalists had been invited: to “give lie to” Japanese "propaganda" that " radiations were responsible for deaths even after” the Hiroshima attack, as he wrote. He quoted General Groves calling any deaths by radiation in Japan as "very small." (In truth, the total was probably 20,000 or more in the two bombed cities.)
General Groves had expressly asked the reporters to assist him in this effort, and they did not disappoint him. Geiger counters showed that surface radiation, after nearly two months, had “dwindled to a minute quantity, safe for continuous human habitation,” Laurence asserted. He did introduce one bit of contrary information: the reporters had been advised to wear canvas overshoes to protect against radiation burns.
But Laurence was keeping a lot to himself. Embedded with the Manhattan Project for months, he was the only reporter who knew about the fallout scare surrounding the Trinity test: scientists in jeeps chasing a radioactive cloud, Geiger counters clicking off the scale, a mule that became paralyzed. Here was the nation’s leading science reporter, severely compromised, not only unable but disinclined to reveal all he knew about the potential hazards of the most important scientific discovery of his time. Read his Sept. 12, 1945 story here and note repeated use of word "propaganda" to describe Japan's claims, the debunking of reported symptoms of radiation disease, the explicit claim that the bomb had to be dropped to end the war.
The press tour, in fact, had “an oddly reassuring effect,” the New York Times observed in an editorial. Later, a scientist informed the young soldier, Patrick Stout, who stood in the crater during the press tour, that he had been exposed to dangerous levels of radioactivity. Twenty-two years later Stout became ill and was diagnosed with leukemia. The military, apparently acknowledging radiation as the cause, granted him “service-connected” disability compensation. Stout died in 1969.
W.L. Laurence would win another Pulitzer for his Bomb-related reporting in 1945.
Greg Mitchell’s book and e-book is Atomic Cover-up. He also co-authored with Robert Jay Lifton, Hiroshima in America.
Obama Widens Endless War
Maybe best thing I've read on Obama's speech, by Philip Gourevitch at The New Yorker--captures all the contradictions. Can't help feeling that he was taunted into battle, as a child might succumb. Just one bit, on forgotten war (I've tried to raise it at Twitter) that few mention:
The President never mentioned Libya. That was the last time he attempted to wage a war on the spur of the moment, getting into it, at first, as a rescue mission to prevent a predicted massacre, then escalating fast and hard—but remaining always in the air—in support of rebel ground forces whom we barely knew, and whom we understood even less, with no clear end but total regime change, and with no commitment whatever beyond the first rush of the revolution. That war then spilled over into Mali, and turned inward in Libya, so that today the country is an absolute catastrophe—far worse off than when NATO joined its troubles, with Tripoli in the hands of forces much like ISIS.
September 11, 2014
On Losing a Friend on 9/11--And the Losses Since
Thirteen years years ago, at this hour on this day (and very sunny, like today), I was boarding a train to New York, heading for my office in the East Village, in New York, at Editor & Publisher magazine. A few minutes later, as my train sped south, an airliner flew almost directly overhead over the Hudson on its way to find and smash into one of the World Trade Center towers. Before the train reached Grand Central, a conductor announced that first one plane, then another, had hit the WTC. I looked down the river and saw the smoke, recalling that one of my friends, who I had talked to the night before--about the Little League team we coached--worked on a very high floor in one of the towers.I watched the next hour unfold at Grand Central, tried to catch the last train out of town, barely missed, then evacuated the terminal in full after they announced a plane might be heading out way. Then I wandered downtown...
The rest if my story from that day (and the state of terror and war since) which I wrote for The Nation two years ago. And my photo at Ground Zero one year after.
***
On that morning in September, I found myself stuck at Grand Central Terminal—just off a commuter train and transfixed in front of a TV tuned to Fox News within a large newsstand just off the main hall. The image on the screen: the Twin Towers on fire. By now it was certain that this was a deliberate, terrorist attack. but Grand Central had not yet been evacuated. The subways were still running—with the towers yet to fall—but I could not move from in front of the TV.A good friend of mine worked on a top floor of one of the towers. I had just spoken to him the night before.
So it went for millions of New Yorkers that day. It’s always amazed me how so many people in the rest of America—and so many politicians—could invoke 9/11 to sell or accept war, torture, wiretapping and all the rest, yet most of the citizens in the region that experienced 9/11 and the human loss more than anywhere else, here in the New York area, opposed those measures, according to polls. Now families, around the country, mourn lives still being lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, while others decry the wasted resources and human spirit spent on wars..
Compared with the stories of some New Yorkers, my own 9/11 story pales, but it informs everything I write and feel about the tragedy.
That morning, I was midway to Grand Central Terminal on a train speeding along the Hudson when the conductor came on the public-address system and said, “A plane has just hit the World Trade Center.“ And, sure enough, looking straight down the river, there was one of the Twin Towers smoking. Then, a few minutes later, pulling into Grand Central, came another announcement: “You’re not going to believe this, folks, but a plane has just hit the other tower.”
My first thought was: “What floor does Jon Albert work on?” I recalled it as being horrendously high. I had just talked with my friend the previous night. He was on the board of the local Little League, I was a manager. I had coached his son Stephen for several years, and wrote about Jon and his boy in my recent book, Joy in Mudville. In fact, I was coaching his son that month on my “fall ball” team, and his dad was one of my assistants.
Only much later, when I learned the flight paths of the two jetliners, did I realize that as I was hurtling south on the train along the river, at least one of the hijacked planes flew directly overhead. Nearing the city, I might have even heard it.
After ordered out of Grand Central, I spent the next three hours, in a sun-drenched daze, trying to reach our office, more than thirty blocks south. I took a cab for a few blocks, then all traffic stopped. I walked back to Grand Central thinking the subways or trains might be running again. They weren’t. Like other New Yorkers, I staggered around town for an hour. Catching bits of news off TV sets in bars and cafes, some of us learned that another hijacked airliner might be heading our way.
Then I trudged to the office. Rooms in every hotel were already taken. At one, three young people who had been catering an event ainone of the towers tried unsuccessfully to book a room. They were ghost-like, partly covered in ash.
As I got below 14th Street, I could see the mountain of deadly smoke covering that patch of blue sky to the south that once embraced the towers. I was a veteran of ground zeroes, having spent a lot of time in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but this was here, this was now. Swirls of acrid dust blew in my face—pulverized concrete and (I imagined) human residue.
Well, I reached the office, somehow got some stories up on our website, and when the trains started running again, I headed for home in the evening. When I got there,
I found out that Jon Albert, who worked at Marsh-McLennan, had not yet returned, and everyone feared the worst. Also missing was the daughter of our neighbors directly across the street. (We had just given the neighbors our son's old backyard swing/slide set for the use of their daughter's kids when they visited.)
None of us could reach our office the next day, as everything south of 14th Street was sealed off, but many of us dodged the police lines a day later to help get the issue out, on time: a small miracle. To do it, we had to ignore the disturbing smells from outside that often filtered through our ventilation system. Our first cover at Editor & Publisher was all black with “September 11, 2001” in white type. My friend Jon Albert still hadn’t come home.
Two weeks later, I took my son, along with Jon’s two boys, to a Mets game. Then I arranged for the Mets to let them come down on the field and talk with manager Bobby Valentine in the dugout and meet some of the players. They were all kind. The boys still thought Dad was coming home. He never did, and the paperback edition of Joy in Mudville is now dedicated to him. So is the local Little League field. So is this article, and everything else I write about war and terror.
Hook Him, Dano
Upcoming Brian Wilson bio-pic just debuted at Toronto film fest and gets rave here. Stars Paul Dano as Bri in '60s and John Cusack in '80s, seemingly leaving out his worst years in the mental wilderness, the '70s, when we got first interviews with him in this period at Crawdaddy. Warning: written by same guy who penned awful "I'm Not There" Dylan travesty. Cusack also many, many pounds thinner.... Red carpet:
September 10, 2014
Amnesty International Responds to Obama Speech
Amnesty International USA executive director, Steven W. Hawkins released the following statement:
“The armed group that calls itself Islamic State has gravely exacerbated the deteriorating human rights situation across Northern Iraq but hasty action by US policymakers could add to the suffering of Iraqi civilians and others in the region.
“Without firm rules in place, it would be reckless for the US or others to provide military aid to any party in the conflict. Islamic State has committed serious war crimes, but other militias supported by the Iraqi government have also attacked civilian populations in revenge and the Iraqi military itself has shelled residential communities.
“Additionally, President Obama's proposed $5 billion anti-terrorism fund also risks deepening partnerships between the US and highly repressive governments like Saudi Arabia, which has used its own so-called anti-terrorism laws to silence peaceful human rights criticism at home.
“President Obama must make a public commitment that any US airstrikes will be directed at bona fide military targets, with all reasonable precautions taken to prevent civilian death or injury. Amidst the horrors caused by Islamic State, US policymakers should pause and ensure that US policies do not do further harm to civilians caught in the ongoing conflict.”
Amnesty International USA is also calling on the Obama administration to adhere closely to the outlines of its arms transfer policy outlined in January, taking into account “the likelihood that the recipient would use the arms to commit human rights abuses or serious violations of international humanitarian law, retransfer the arms to those who would commit human rights abuses or serious violations of international humanitarian law, or identify the United States with human rights abuses or serious violations of international humanitarian law.”
The Day Obama Goes to War: Updates Here
Will add at top as day goes on.--New AP report says claims of ISIS power exaggerated, not a "juggernaut," have fanatics but not much weaponry. "Most analysts...estimate the number of Islamic State fighters in both Iraq and Syria to be about 20,000.
In any case, the group is dwarfed by its foes in the Syrian and Iraqi armies — both in numbers and firepower."
--Sen. Tom Harkin one of few Dems to take strong stand in hitting the "fear-mongering."
--McClatchy on Kerry today: "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry raised the possibility Wednesday that U.S. troops might be committed to ground operations in Iraq in extreme circumstances, the first hedging by an administration official on President Barack Obama’s pledge that there will be no U.S. boots on the ground to battle the Islamic State." Something "dramatic" would have to change. But then, it usually does.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/09/10...
--Noah Shactman of the Daily Beast: "US has bombed 37 ISIS Humvees, Pentagon said. How many of them were made in America?"
--Hannah Allam of McClatchy tweets: "State Dept just chided
And Allam with question from State Dept. presser: "Q. What if arming
--Quote of the day in tweet just now by NYT's James Risen: "Note to young journalists: You all complain about how pre-war intel was handled in 2002/2003. So how are you going to be remembered?" Adds: "The difference between late 2002 and today: In 2002, U.S. intel talked wmd. Today they are making public statements saying no threat." Yet much of media has hyped threat.
--Those brave Democrats in Congress, of course, have no interest in clamoring for a war vote. Even the progressive caucus is divided. Mother Jones does a mini-roll call and finds Bernie Sanders backing Obama action--and Elizabeth Warren silent.
From The Guardian: "The White House declared on Tuesday night that it needn’t bother to ask Congress for war powers, and Congress is more than happy to relieve itself of the responsibility of asking for them – or, you know, voting. Members of both parties have actually been telling the president to ignore the legislative branch entirely – as well as his constitutional and legal requirements. It seems so long ago now that presidential candidate Obama said, 'The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'”
--Former Obama press secretary Jay Carney joins CNN in time to critique Obama speech. That's tough-minded cable news for you.
--My book on media failures on Iraq the first time around, 2002-2008.
--WSJ editorial headline today says it all: "Dick Cheney Is Still Right." Dave Weigel tweets: "Will Dick Cheney's Iraq speech be rebutted by someone with equal credibility? Or did
--New NBC polls shows 6 in 10 Americans back bombing ISIS. Remember they also showed public backed invading Iraq in 2003, which turned out great, right? You might say, as Internet slows down, Obama ramps up.
--NYT probably thinks this is a tough-minded editorial but it's actually wishy-washy. It's not let's-not-start-war but just-explain-why. Obama's speech should be, "Tonight I will declare war against a grave threat to our way of life, the crumbling infra-structure here in the homeland. It may last years."
--When BIll Moyers skewered media for hyping Iraq threat back in 2003.
The Final Front Page Before The Planes Hit
Everything changed that day. Perhaps that's why millions of us still retain, filed away, the front page of our local paper for Sept. 12, 2001, carrying a banner headline that reads something like "America Under Attack" or "New Day of Infamy." But the true impact of what happened hit me harder than it had for quite some time while examining a routine, even dull, front page from the day of the terror attacks.Holding that September 11, 2001, front page of The New York Times in my hands, it produced a shiver. There was the weather forecast in the upper right corner, accurately predicting the memorable day as "mainly sunny, high 79." Then it occurred to me that I would have read that very edition on the train to New York City that morning, speeding down the Hudson as one of the hijacked planes flew directly overhead, followed minutes later by a conductor announcing over the P.A. system, "You won't believe this folks, but a plane has hit one of the World Trade Center towers." I looked out the window and saw smoke far down the river. Then upon arrival at Grand Central, the conductor announced that the second tower had been struck. One of my friends was on one of the highest floors.
But what really set me thinking, more than five years later, was this: The killings in America were confined to that day, but within hours of the terror attacks, events were set in motion that would lead to even more Americans perishing abroad in the unnecessary war in Iraq-- not to mention all the dead Iraqis and the wasting of a trillion dollars. As Richard Clarke revealed, before 9/11 was over the administration was already boasting that it would attack Saddam, even without any proof of a connection to that day's terror attacks.
Looking at that front page reminded me of what was lost: the relatively peaceful "normalcy" of our lives then, and the hope that major problems plaguing us here at home (such as health care) could be tackled and resolved. Instead we got a seemingly endless "war on terror." And we are still in Afghanistan.
What was the lead upper-right headline that day in the Times? "Key Leaders Talk of Possible Deals to Revive Economy." Next to that: "Scientists Urge Bigger Supply of Stem Cells." Ho-hum, but a whole lot better than "Surge of U.S. Troops to Baghdad Not Producing Results." Other front-page headlines from Sept. 11, 2001, reflect an innocence now lost: "School Dress vs. a Sea of Bare Flesh" and "In a Nation of Early Risers, Morning TV is a Hot Market." (Note: In some editions, though not mine, there was a front-page story at bottom right on a 1971 hijacking.)
If we could only turn back the clock. More than just about anyone, many of those in the media--including at The New York Times--no doubt wish they could turn back the clock to the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, and do a lot of things differently in the months and years that followed.
September 9, 2014
The Godfather of HBO Soul
Just announced, after feature film, new doc on James Brown coming to HBO on October 27, from Mick Jagger and the indefatigable Alex Gibney. This gives me another excuse to post my favorite vid of the year, mash-up of James and Dylan. Like a Rolling Sex Machine.
