Author: Jonathan Schwarz

Given the news about the massacre in Haditha last November, now’s the time to remember Seymour Hersh’s story from October, 2004:

HERSH: I got a call last week from a soldier — it’s different now, a lot of communication, 800 numbers. He’s an American officer and he was in a unit halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border. It’s a place where we claim we’ve done great work at cleaning out the insurgency. He was a platoon commander. First lieutenant, ROTC guy.

It was a call about this. He had been bivouacing outside of town with his platoon. It was near, it was an agricultural area, and there was a granary around. And the guys that owned the granary, the Iraqis that owned the granary… It was an area that the insurgency had some control, but it was very quiet, it was not Fallujah. It was a town that was off the mainstream. Not much violence there. And his guys, the guys that owned the granary, had hired, my guess is from his language, I wasn’t explicit — we’re talking not more than three dozen, thirty or so guards. Any kind of work people were dying to do. So Iraqis were guarding the granary. His troops were bivouaced, they were stationed there, they got to know everybody…

They were a couple weeks together, they knew each other. So orders came down from the generals in Baghdad, we want to clear the village, like in Samarra. And as he told the story, another platoon from his company came and executed all the guards, as his people were screaming, stop. And he said they just shot them one by one. He went nuts, and his soldiers went nuts. And he’s hysterical. He’s totally hysterical. And he went to the captain. He was a lieutenant, he went to the company captain. And the company captain said, “No, you don’t understand. That’s a kill. We got thirty-six insurgents.”

Now’s also the time to remember the dismissive reaction to this from U.S. conservatives. Here’s Max Boot writing in the Los Angeles Times:

…in his lectures [Hersh] has spread the legend of how a U.S. Army platoon was supposedly ordered to execute 30 Iraqis guarding a granary.

And here’s the Weekly Standard’s happy chortling:

…maybe you’re an aging lefty icon who got famous reporting the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. And so maybe you’re still milking your notoriety for everything it’s worth. And maybe you’re always imagining another scoop like My Lai, because you’re afraid that on some level you’ve become just another old gasbag on the lecture circuit.

Of course, we still don’t know the truth behind Hersh’s story. But if accurate, it does more than indicate the recent Haditha massacre wasn’t an isolated incident. It suggests it may be fairly common.

Why? Note again the location Hersh gives for the alleged fall, 2004 massacre:

…he was in a unit halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border.

Now, note the location of Haditha, site of the confirmed November, 2005 massacre:

This is a beautiful rant by Jamison Foser of Media Matters:

At this point, you’d have to be blind to miss the pattern. Every prominent progressive leader who comes along is openly derided in the media as fake, dishonest, conniving, out-of-the-mainstream, and weak. We simply can’t continue to chalk this up to shortcomings on the part of Democratic candidates or their staff and consultants. It’s all too clear that this will happen regardless of who the candidate or leader is; regardless of who works for him or her. The smearing of Jack Murtha should prove that to anyone who still doubts it.

Meanwhile, any conservative who comes along is going to be praised for being strong and authentic and likable.

The rest, of which there is quite a lot, and is all worth reading, is here.

The only part I disagree with is the very end:

…for years, the media has employed a double-standard in covering progressives and conservatives…it can’t go on.

First of all, the corporate media has ALWAYS employed this double-standard, not simply “for years.” And of course it can go on. What would stop it?

Of all the things that drive me crazy about my progressive compatriots, it’s this belief that you can change the corporate media with accurate criticism of it. They believe at some point the people within the media will realize they’re wrong, and their behavior will improve.

This is insane. The corporate media is the way it is because it exists to make as much money as possible. It doesn’t exist to give people an accurate picture of the world. It doesn’t exist to provide jobs for honest journalists. On rare occasions it will do both. But mostly it won’t, because the need to make as much money as possible usually conflicts with everything good.

Waiting for this to change is like waiting for Santa Claus to bring us presents. But Santa Claus won’t ever bring us presents, because THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS.

Perhaps you’ve already seen this column by David Broder, Dean of the Washington Press Corps, in which he explains what he’s interested in:

But for all the delicacy of the treatment, the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons’ marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal — if any was needed — that the drama of the Clintons’ personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president.

Now, here’s the Broder on Meet the Press last December, explaining what he’s NOT interested in:

MR. RUSSERT: David Broder, is it possible for official Washington–the president, Democratic leaders, Republican leaders–to arrive at common ground, a consensus position on Iraq?

MR. DAVID BRODER: It’s possible, Tim, but they won’t get there by arguing about who did what three years ago. And this whole debate about whether there was just a mistake or misrepresentation or so on is, I think, from the public point of view largely irrelevant. The public’s moved past that.

Of course, by “the public’s moved past that,” Broder meant “I’ve moved past that.” Just days after he said this, a New York Times poll found that 80% of Americans felt it was “very” (56%) or “somewhat” (24%) important for Congress to investigate Bush’s use of intelligence on Iraq.

So to sum up Broder’s worldview:

Bill Clinton’s Wang And What It’s Doing Right This Second: HOT! HOT! HOT!

Lies That Have Killed Tens Of Thousands: EH. THIS MAKES ME SLEEPY.

Economist Dean Baker is appearing now until 2:30 pm ET over at MaxSpeak! to answer questions about his book The Conservative Nanny State (which is available as a free download). I myself will be at MaxSpeak! making strained, non-funny jokes such as “please speak more clearly and directly into the microphone.”

Dean Baker is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. People who closely followed Bush’s attempts to dismantle Social Security last year know Baker may have done more than any one person to stop it.

Now Baker has written a book all progressives should read: The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer.

For decades the media (and conservatives) have pushed a particular framing of political views on the economy: conservatives favor free market policies, while progressives want the government to intervene in the market. In fact, The Conservative Nanny State explains, this is completely untrue: conservatives are strongly anti-free market. They depend on the government to make the wealthiest people in America even more stupendously rich.

As Baker shows, this is the case essentially across the board. Conservatives push trade, monetary, tax and intellectual property policies that get the government deeply involved in the economy. The only difference between them and progressives is that conservatives want the government to help Paris Hilton, while progressives want the government to help regular people.

The Conservative Nanny State is short and easy to read, and requires no special background in economics. It’s also available for free as an e-book at its website, or for $6.91 as a paperback. (For Baker’s ideas on how copyright law can be overhauled to benefit writers, musicians, artists and everyone else in the internet age, see Chapter 4.)

What’s really amazing is that conservatives have gotten away with yelling about “free markets” for so long. Of course, they’re the same people who spent years screaming about Iraq’s terrifying WMD, and look how well that’s turned out.