Group items tagged

Below are three clips -- first, the exchange [Glenn Greenwald] had with Kagan defender (and former Obama White House counsel) Greg Craig regarding Kagan's lack of known views on most issues, followed by the two full, unedited segments of the roundtable. Craig's inability to identify any specific views which Kagan has on the critical issues I asked about has been replicated by numerous other Kagan defenders:

I intended to post sporadically or not at all this week, and that's still my plan, but there is a new Washington Post article which contains three short passages that I really want to highlight because they so vividly capture the essence of so much. The article, by Greg Miller, is being promoted by the Post this way: "In 3 years, the Obama administration has built a vast drone/killing operation"; it describes the complete secrecy behind which this is all being carried out and notes: "no president has ever relied so extensively on the secret killing of individuals to advance the nation's security goals." Here is the first beautifully revealing passage:

In response to the Harvard study documenting how newspapers labeled waterboarding as "torture" for almost 100 years until the Bush administration told them not to, The New York Times issued a statement justifying this behavior on the ground that it did not want to take sides in the debate. Andrew Sullivan, Greg Sargent and Adam Serwer all pointed out that "taking a side" is precisely what the NYT did: by dutifully complying with the Bush script and ceasing to use the term (replacing it with cleansing euphemisms), it endorsed the demonstrably false proposition that waterboarding was something other than torture. Yesterday, the NYT's own Brian Stelter examined this controversy and included a justifying quote from the paper's Executive Editor, Bill Keller, that is one of the more demented and reprehensible statements I've seen from a high-level media executive in some time (h/t Jay Rosen):

Afghanistan may be the graveyard of empires, but Iraq is home to a graveyard sense of humor. Iraqis wonder aloud whether the U.S. and Britain would have invaded Iraq if its main export had been cabbages instead of oil. However obvious the answer, a remarkable array of American pundits and pseudo-savants have resisted giving the oil factor any pride of place among the motives behind the U.S./U.K. decision to invade Iraq in 2003. To this day, the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) continues to play its accustomed role as government accomplice suppressing unwelcome news. So, if you don't tune in to Amy Goodman's Democracy Now or read the British press, you would have missed the latest documentary evidence showing that Great Britain's Lords and Ladies lied about how big oil companies, like BP, lusted after Iraqi oil in the months leading up to the attack on Iraq. Oil researcher Greg Muttitt's new book Fuel on Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq presents that evidence, since Muttitt had better luck than his American counterparts in getting responses to his Freedom of Information requests. After a five-year struggle, he obtained more than 1,000 official documents which - how to say this - do not reflect well on the peerage, the captains of the oil industry, and the government of Tony Blair.

In the name of bridging great divides and of fostering peace and harmony, a proposal has been made to open a gay bar in the commercial space next to Cordoba House.

The grand mosque of Cordoba was built as a monument to the conquest of Spain. By naming this as Project Cordoba are we being told that this mosque is to be the monument to the impending conquest of America? In the name of building bridges and tolerance, should a Knights Templar monastery be built across the street from this mosque?

Pressure of deadlines is not an excuse, but it does increase the burden of proof for intent. In addition, in a complex story like this, balance arises from the totality of coverage, and an individual report can only be approximately neutral. Should we not expect an experienced reporter like Bowen to provide some original interpretation of motives?