BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

WANTED - Who killed the anti-war movement?

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

By Gabriele Zamparini

After the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington – and in spite of nationalist propaganda of unprecedented levels coming from the warmongers and their bowing and scraping servants in the media – the hopes for a global, really internationalist anti-war movement for peace and justice were very promising. Many objective factors contributed to those hopes: the most despicable American citizen was co-opted to be the White House’s resident by his father’s friends sitting at the Supreme Court; a well known gang of bloodthirsty psychopaths formed his infamous Junta; important parts of the American establishment were critical or very critical of the Bush Junta’s criminal plans and many governments voiced their opposition to those plans, which would bring to the unprecedented 2003 UN tsunami.

Even though the brainwashing for the war of aggression against Afghanistan worked very well, there was a very high and organized opposition in the US and in the UK for the coming war of aggression against Iraq. That opposition was much higher in the rest of the world and possibly for the first time in history, thanks also to the Internet, we experienced a real internationalist movement connected and mobilized against the World’s warlords. On 15 February 2003 millions of people took the streets of the world to denounce their opposition to the mass murderers’ plans; where the United Nations failed, the United Nations’ Peoples claimed their democratic sovereignty: DON’T ATTACK IRAQ – NOT IN OUR NAME.

Four and half years later, the anti-war movement is just a shadow of itself while in Iraq the genocide of a whole People and the annihilation of the whole country is business as usual; the banality of evil in XXI Century flavour.

What happened?

Of course, everybody agrees with Howard Zinn, “there is no magical panacea, only persistence.” But in these past few years the anti-war movement’s establishment has taken all the wrong decisions and the worst directions.

In the US especially, the anti-war planners wanted to go mainstream.

The oldest, most experienced and committed segments of the movements have been isolated because too “old fashioned” and not presentable to the “new friends”, the generous foundations linked to the Democratic Party. Socialism and Marx can’t really be welcomed at fundraising dinners and cocktail parties.

In spite of the many anti-war planners’ claims that the Israel Lobby has no real power to influence the US government’s policies, that Lobby is so very powerful to influence even the anti-war movement from within. The Palestine issue needed to be downplayed and many Palestine’s supporters and campaigners have been marginalized.

That part of the movement who would keep asking questions about the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington (please, note: questions doesn’t mean conspiracy theories) have also been isolated and now whoever dares to question the official truth of those events is labeled as conspiracy nut.

We all rightly criticized that most of the mainstream media journalists have been embedded to the US Army, but at the same time the anti-war movement’s establishment has been in bed with the Democratic Party. In both cases, the show hasn’t been pretty.

Continuously lecturing about democracy, the anti-war movement’s planners have taken the most important decisions in name of the anti-war movement without consulting with anybody, let alone a real democratic process where those guidelines were discussed and chosen or rejected.

While Iraq was being consciously brought into a civil war by the occupation, who decided the support given by the anti-war movement to the infamous political process and the outrageous Welcome given to Maliki?

Who decided the shameful, complete silence of the anti-war movement when the legitimate president of Iraq was being illegally lynched by that scandalous trial and then finally brutally assassinated by those sectarian collaborationists who were also carrying out mass murdering and ethnic cleansing against innocent people? Who decided the almost unanimous support for Moqtada al-Sadr’s movement while its militia, the Mahdi Army, has been carrying out atrocious crimes against humanity? Why has there been such a complicit silence, when not an active defense, toward the notorious Iraq Body Count. Who decided that the anti-war movement couldn’t express sympathy to the Iraqi resistance?

All these and many other important decisions, important also for the anti-war movement’s directions, were taken by a very tiny minority of intellectuals and planners, in the solitude of their Ivory Tower. No open debate was allowed. The result has been a complete catastrophe, when not associating the anti-war movement with ethnic cleansing in Iraq, as in the case of the shocking support to Moqtada al-Sadr and the silence around his murderous Mahdi Army, a support and a silence that still persist, in spite of tons of documents, reports, testimonies, denounces, articles and an ocean of blood. (Just read one of the latest of those documents, the recently published Amnesty International’s report, Iraq: human rights abuses against Palestinian refugees).

The anti-war movement’s elites have barred any open debate on many fundamental questions, imposing to the anti-war movement a direction decided in other quarters and leaving the millions of people with the only choice to take it or to leave it. Millions have left.

Have Your Say: WANTED - Who killed the anti-war movement?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Iraq body count: BBC and other mainstream media use misleading figures

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

The mainstream media are continuing to use figures provided by the website Iraq Body Count (IBC) to sell the public a number for total post-invasion deaths of Iraqis that is perhaps 5-10% of the true death toll.

As we recently reported, only a handful of media outlets covered a new ORB poll revealing that 1.2 million Iraqis had been murdered since the 2003 invasion. BBC Online provided a rare example:

“A UK-based polling agency, Opinion Research Business (ORB), said it had extrapolated the figure by asking a random sample of 1,461 Iraqi adults how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.

“The results lend weight to a 2006 survey of Iraqi households published by the Lancet, which suggested that about 655,000 Iraqi deaths were ‘a consequence of the war’.

“However, these estimates are both far higher than the running total of reported civilian deaths maintained by the campaign group Iraq Body Count which puts the figure at between 71,000 and 78,000.” (BBC Online, ’US contractors in Iraq shootout,’ September 17, 2007; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998458.stm)

BBC’s Newsnight programme used IBC’s figures in the same way:

“More than a million Iraqis have been killed since the invasion in 2003, according to the British polling company ORB. The study’s likely to fuel controversy over the true, human cost of the war. It’s significantly up on the previous highest estimate of 650,000 deaths published by the Lancet last October… The independent Iraqi [sic] Body Count group puts the current total at closer to 75,000.” (Newsnight, BBC2, September 14, 2007)

These reports again raise serious issues about what IBC’s figures actually mean, how they are being used and misused to cast doubt on higher numbers, and about what IBC is doing to promote or reduce the confusion. (See our 2006 Media Alerts archive for previous analysis, beginning with: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php)

Just “Care And Literacy” - No Extrapolations Required

In its latest press release, ‘The State of Knowledge on Civilian Casualties in Iraq,’ IBC explains ‘What IBC Does’:

“Provides an irrefutable baseline figure”

Similarly in 2006, IBC wrote: “We are providing a conservative cautious minimum.” (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/qa/ibc-in-context/)

These both describe laudable objectives involving little more than accurate data collection. IBC co-founder John Sloboda made the point in a BBC interview in response to criticism that he and his colleagues were “amateurs” in the field of mortality studies:

“Our position is, and always has been, that reading press reports, which is what this job is, requires nothing other than care and literacy. The whole point about it is that it doesn’t require statistical analysis or extrapolations.”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4950254.stm)

And yet in their latest press release (September 3, 2007), under the title, ’How plausible is 600,000 violent Iraqi deaths?’, IBC devote five pages to wide-ranging criticism of the 2006 Lancet study which estimated 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq. IBC’s conclusion:

“Our own view is that the current death toll +could+ be around twice the numbers recorded by IBC and the various official sources in Iraq. We do not think it could possibly be 10 times higher.” (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/state-of-knowledge/7)

In similar vein, the Toronto Star quoted IBC co-founder John Sloboda as saying:

“The death toll could be twice our number, but it could not possibly be 10 times higher.” (Haroon Siddiqui, ‘How many civilians have died?’ Toronto Star, September 20, 2007; http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/258511)

This last comment was reported less than a week after the publication of ORB’s poll revealing 1.2 million Iraqi deaths.

Two questions arise: Why is it important for IBC - providing an “irrefutable baseline” based on data collection - to challenge the methodology and conclusions of epidemiological studies published in the Lancet which go far beyond data collection and which do not in any way challenge their baseline as a “cautious minimum”?

Secondly, while IBC’s self-described task does indeed require only “care and literacy”, does not the task of challenging peer-reviewed science published by some of the world’s leading epidemiologists require very much more? Does it not, in fact “require statistical analysis or extrapolations,” and much else besides?

In a 2006 addition to their website, IBC wowed visitors with scientific jargon:

“Our data is very rich, because it provides a large subset of what is happening.

“It has high spatiotemporal specificity. Post-event interviews are always hampered by the fact that people tend to move on, and may not remain in the area or even in the country. Our data is recorded as close to the time and place of death as possible, and so has ‘forensic’ elements.” (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/qa/ibc-in-context/10)

It seems that IBC have used their credibility as data collectors to ‘cross sell’ their credibility as commentators on peer-reviewed epidemiology to the media community. But this second task is unrelated to their task as data collectors, and is an area in which, to our knowledge, none of the co-authors of their press releases have any research record or publication history in any relevant scientific discipline.

In a 2006 BBC interview, John Sloboda said of the 2004 Lancet study:

“Some critics of the Lancet study have said it’s like a drunk throwing a dart at a dartboard. It’s going to go somewhere, but who knows if that number is the bulls eye.

“Unfortunately many many people have decided to accept that that 98,000 figure is the truth - or the best approximation to the truth that we have.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4950254.stm)

Sloboda was here endorsing a claim based on a failure to comprehend even the basic meaning of the Lancet study’s range of figures - the “drunk throwing a dart at a dartboard” analogy was and is absurd. No qualified epidemiologist would countenance making such a comment.

Unsurprisingly, most journalists reporting on international affairs appear unable to distinguish between the task of “reading press reports” on the one hand, and engaging in “statistical analysis or extrapolations”, on the other. Reporters naturally assume that, given its “high spatiotemporal specificity”, IBC’s credibility is on a par with the world’s leading experts in the field published in the world’s leading scientific journals and subject to an exacting system of peer review.

Certainly IBC do nothing to discourage, and everything to encourage, such a view. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable for IBC to point out in commenting on the Lancet studies to highly influential media that they are in fact +not+ especially qualified to comment on the science of epidemiology?

The Problem Of Relying On The Journalistic Record

IBC also move far beyond data collection in this latest addition to the site:

“Those who suggest that the IBC data-base is likely to contain only a tiny minority of actual deaths generally argue three things. First, they say that IBC only records deaths in areas where Western journalists are present; second they propose that there have been at least seven credible studies which suggest up to ten times as many deaths as we have recorded; and third they assert that an alternate media world exists containing a professional Arab-language press which continually reports far more deaths than the sources we monitor in English.

“We have dealt with the first two claims in detail on the public record and will be happy to answer questions about them in the discussion. IBC in Context (Feb 2006)”
(http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/state-of-knowledge/)

IBC omit to mention the most obvious and telling criticism: that the credibility of their database as an approximate guide to levels of violence in Iraq - i.e., “The death toll could be twice our number, but it could not possibly be 10 times higher” - is undermined by the fact that conditions in Iraq are so lethal that journalists are unable to discover many violent deaths of civilians.

Consider that a study of deaths in Guatemala from 1960 to 1996 by Patrick Ball et al at the University of California, Berkeley (1999) found that numbers of murders reported by the media in fact decreased as violence increased. Ball described the “problem of relying on the journalistic record” in evaluating numbers killed:

“When the level of violence increased dramatically in the late 1970s and early 1980s, numbers of reported violations in the press stayed very low. In 1981, one of the worst years of state violence, the numbers fall towards zero. The press reported almost none of the rural violence.” (Patrick Ball, Paul Kobrak, and Herbert F. Spirer, ‘State Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996: A Quantitative Reflection’, 1999; http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ciidh/qr/english/chap7.html)

Ball added:

“Throughout the 1980 to 1983 period newspapers documented only a fraction of the killings and disappearances committed by the State. The maximum monthly value on the graph [see link above] is only 60 for a period when monthly extra-judicial murders regularly totaled in the thousands.”

Ball explained that “the press stopped reporting the violence beginning in September 1980. Perhaps not coincidentally, the database lists seven murders of journalists in July and August of that year”.

The significance is indicated in a Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) report (September 7, 2007), which described how the number of journalists and media workers killed in Iraq since the start of the 2003 invasion had reached 200. According to RSF, 73 per cent of journalists killed had been directly targeted, a figure which was “much higher than in previous wars”. RSF also reported that more journalists had been taken hostage in Iraq than anywhere else in the world. A total of 84 journalists and media workers had been kidnapped in the previous four years. (http://electroniciraq.net/news/themedia/Media_Worker_Death_Toll_Reaches_200-3197.shtml)

Lancet study co-authors Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham wrote recently:

“A study of 13 war affected countries presented at a recent Harvard conference found over 80% of violent deaths in conflicts go unreported by the press and governments.” (Roberts and Burnham, ‘Ignorance of Iraqi death toll no longer an option,’ http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2613)

We contacted the author of the study, Ziad Obermeyer, for details. Demonstrating a level of scientific caution that is absent from some of IBC‘s bold pronouncements, Obermeyer responded that because his manuscript was progressing through the peer review process he could not provide anything for “formal citation”. He added:

“It is safe to say, however, that our estimates of violent war deaths, based on nationally representative surveys, are substantially higher than those commonly cited for most of the 13 countries we study.” (Email to Media Lens, September 24, 2007)

Roberts and Burnham continued:

“City officials in the Iraqi city of Najaf were recently quoted on Middle East Online stating that 40,000 unidentified bodies have been buried in that city since the start of the conflict. When speaking to the Rotarians in a speech covered on C-SPAN on September 5th, H.E. Samir Sumaida’ie, the Iraqi Ambassador to the US, stated that there were 500,000 new widows in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton Commission similarly found that the Pentagon under-counted violent incidents by a factor of 10.” (Roberts and Burnham op. cit)

IBC’s methodology was devised by Marc Herold, a professor of economics at the University of New Hampshire. Herold has tracked deaths in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion of 2001. It was Herold’s Afghan Victim Memorial Project that inspired John Sloboda to set up IBC. Herold’s “most conservative estimate” of Afghan civilian deaths resulting from American/NATO operations is between 5,700 and 6,500. But, he cautions, this is “probably a vast underestimate”. (Haroon Siddiqui, ‘Counting the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan,’ Toronto Star, September 23, 2007; http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/259269)

There is no reason to believe that the application of the same methodology in Iraq is generating very different results. But IBC has never, to our knowledge, accepted that their own count is “probably a vast underestimate” of the total death toll.

In the past, IBC’s response to the suggestion that violence prevents journalists from capturing many deaths has been, in effect, ‘Prove it!’ Well, the bureau chief of one of three Western media agencies providing a third of IBC’s data from Iraq sent this email to a colleague last year (the latter asked us to preserve the sender’s anonymity):

“iraq body count is i think a very misleading exercise. We know they must have been undercounting for at least the first two years because we know that we did not report anything like all the deaths we were aware of… we are also well aware that we are not aware of many deaths on any given day.” (Email sent October 25, 2006)

Despite IBC’s claims, nowhere in their discussion do they deal with the problem that journalistic reporting of violent deaths can decrease as violence increases, particularly when that includes violence against journalists, as is very much the case in Iraq.

More to the point, as data collectors, IBC are not in a position to comment authoritatively on the impact of violence on the capacity of journalists to report accurately from Iraq. As data collectors, they have no more insight, no deeper understanding, than anyone else.

The reasonable response to the question of political impacts on their database is not for IBC to authoritatively suggest that they “have dealt with” the problem of lack of journalistic coverage - to conclusively declare: “The death toll could be twice our number, but it could not possibly be 10 times higher” - but to openly acknowledge that their task is limited to the monitoring of media reports.

For leading mainstream journalists, and for IBC themselves, to present IBC as an informed and credible source on political realities on the ground in Iraq is highly inappropriate.

A good example of this distortion was provided on September 7 by Michael Gordon of the New York Times. Gordon offered positive spin on the ‘progress’ of the ’surge’:

“The most comprehensive and up-to-date military statistics show that American forces have made some headway toward a crucial goal of protecting the Iraqi population.” (Gordon, ‘Assessing the “Surge” - Hints of Progress, and Questions, in Iraq Data,’ New York Times, September 8, 2007)

In assessing evidence for this humanitarian “headway”, Gordon turned to IBC:

“Iraq Body Count, a British-based nongovernmental group that monitors civilian deaths, notes that the number of civilians who were killed by shootings, executions and bombs has declined from January through July.”

He quoted IBC:

“’Levels of violence reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006… Only in comparison to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an improvement.’”

The last caveat was unimportant, the word supporters of the occupation were looking for was “improvement”.

But there is a problem with IBC’s evidence and with Gordon’s analysis of its significance. In fact, IBC have not at all found that “the number of civilians who were killed by shootings, executions and bombs has declined”. The website has found fewer +reports+ of deaths of civilians killed by shootings, executions and bombs in “information gathering and publishing agencies, principally the commercial news media who provide web access to their reports”. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/methods/2)

While a significant proportion of the deaths recorded or corroborated by IBC come from “cumulative totals reported by official Iraqi sources, in particular the Medico-Legal Institutes (morgues) and, for corroboration purposes, the Ministry of Health”, IBC describes the commercial news media as their “main sources”. (Ibid)

And Les Roberts has commented:

“Media and government reports catch only the tip of the iceberg.” (Siddiqui, op. cit; http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/261722)

For IBC to emphasise that “the first half of 2007 [could] be regarded as an improvement” on the basis of their data collection is therefore misleading. Indeed the whole basis of IBC’s comment was misleading:

“Levels of violence reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006.”

In fact, levels of media +reporting+ of civilian deaths was at an all-time high in the last six months of 2006 - that is not the same thing. As a consequence, and as the material cited above from Patrick Ball and RSF makes clear, IBC are in a position to comment +only+ on numbers of media reports of deaths, not on the inferred significance of those numbers for political realities on the ground.

The Failure To Challenge Media Distortions

What is so disappointing is that while IBC are willing to stray radically beyond merely “reading press reports” with “care and literacy” to challenge scientific studies that do not in any way challenge their “irrefutable baseline figure”, they are apparently not willing to challenge media reports that in effect do challenge that figure. The New York Times report above was a good example. Another appeared in the Financial Times on September 10:

“The war has already cost the lives of 3,760 US troops, and wounded 28,000 more. Iraq Body Count, a group that monitors Iraqi deaths, estimates that 70,000 Iraqis have been killed. It says there has been a ‘modest improvement’ in security compared with the bloody second half of 2006….” (Demetri Sevastopulo, ‘Echoes of Westmoreland and Vietnam,’ Financial Times, September 10, 2007)

But IBC is +not+ “a group that monitors Iraqi deaths”; it is a group that monitors media reports of Iraqi deaths. And IBC does not monitor “Iraqi deaths”; it monitors media reports of Iraqi +civilian+ deaths as a result of violence. IBC does not monitor reports of war-related deaths due to disease, lack of food, water and medicine, and so on. IBC also does not collect reports of Iraqi military deaths.

Because IBC’s “irrefutable baseline” figure refers only to violent deaths of civilians reported by the media, the Financial Times in effect challenged that baseline by asserting that 70,000 Iraqis - i.e., civilians and military - had died. Readers might well have construed that some of these “Iraqi deaths” must have been military deaths, for example, and therefore will have come away from the article believing that many less than 70,000 civilians had died from violence.

The Financial Times could hardly be a more prestigious, influential and high-profile media outlet. And this kind of distortion has been repeated innumerable times, globally, since 2003. Notice, again, the complete inappropriateness of quoting IBC as an authoritative source reporting “a ‘modest improvement’ in security” on the basis of its data collection. As the Guatemala study above indicates, the drop in media reporting could be interpreted as indicating a +worsening+ of security, not least for journalists, leading to a drop in reporting of violent deaths.

Whereas IBC have responded vigorously, indeed tirelessly, in responding to the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies (and to our criticism), to our knowledge they have all but ignored these actual challenges to their baseline figure - a figure which seeks to establish a “cautious minimum” for violent deaths of Iraqi civilians +alone+, not for “Iraqi casualties” in toto, as the Financial Times report suggests.

Indeed, far from exposing these abuses of their work, under ‘Press and media uses of IBC’ (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/qa/used-how/1.php), IBC provide not a single word of criticism of media use of their work. Instead, one of the examples they choose to highlight is an Independent article from July 2005. The first sentence of the article reads:

“Almost 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the two years of war and insurgency that began with the US-led invasion in March 2003. More than a third have died as a result of action by allied forces.” (Terry Kirby and Elizabeth Davies, ‘Iraq conflict claims 34 civilian lives each day as “anarchy” beckons,’ The Independent, July 20, 2005; http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article300368.ece)

It is striking that IBC link to a high-profile media report that so badly misrepresents its figures. As so often, this opening sentence gave the impression that IBC are recording the total number of civilian deaths, rather than merely recording deaths from violence as reported by the media. The extreme gravity of this distortion in downplaying the true extent of Iraqi casualties to the British public is clear enough, given, for example, Patrick Ball’s work.

Elsewhere, IBC write:

“A large number of press and media reports have cited our figures, discussed and assessed our work. Nearly all mentions have been in the context of drawing attention to the human cost of the war.” (John Sloboda, February 17, 2006; http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/qa/ibc-in-context/13)

Again, this is not mere data collection; it is political analysis of media performance. Having ourselves studied media reporting on Iraq closely over the last four years, we arrive at a very different conclusion: media reports have often cited IBC’s figures in the context of +burying+ the human cost of war.

As numerous studies over many decades have shown, it is quite simply the structural role of the corporate media to defend established power by minimising, as far as possible, public perception of the costs to civilians of US-UK state violence. This role has not suddenly changed in regard to Iraq. On the contrary, media performance on Iraq has been a text book example of a corporate propaganda system acting to protect allied elite interests.

Finally, the danger of moving beyond data collection is emphasised in this comment on IBC’s website in response to media reports of the “surge”:

“Despite any efforts put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still the most deadly first six months for civilians of any year since the invasion.” (‘The Baghdad “surge” and civilian casualties’; http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/baghdad-surge/)

This was also highly politicised analysis. IBC’s framing of the issue exactly matches that found in the pro-war Observer:

“Despite the surge, violence remains roughly at the same levels.” (‘Iraq benchmarks,’ The Observer, September 2, 2007)

Imagine what Western journalists would have made of a Soviet organisation observing that a particular period of time had been “the most deadly” for civilians in Afghanistan in the 1980s “despite” a massive surge in Soviet military activity.

And yet this is currently the standard line in mainstream reporting, part of a wider attempt to present the occupation as a well-intentioned effort to achieve peace and democracy, rather than conquest and control.

To their credit, IBC have made an improvement to their website. Their “counter”, which previously recorded “Minimum” and “Maximum” deaths in Iraq, has been changed. Viewed alongside the name Iraq Body Count, visitors were likely to assume that the “Maximum” category referred to the maximum possible number of civilian deaths in Iraq - the full body count - rather than the maximum number of deaths recorded in media reports. The counter now reads:

“Documented civilian deaths from violence 74,432 – 81,120” (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)

IBC comment:

“The change to a simple unlabeled range is intended to help avoid misinterpretation or misrepresentation of these numbers as (for example) the ‘maximum possible’ death toll, or IBC’s ‘estimate’ of it.”

This is a welcome change. However, the very name of the website remains misleading. IBC is, in truth, an Iraq Reported Body Count - nothing more.

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Iraq Body Count
Email: comment@iraqbodycount.org

Raise the issues covered in this alert with the following journalists:

Write to Katherine Butler, foreign editor of the Independent:
Email: k.butler@independent.co.uk

Write to Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor at the Observer:
Email: peter.beaumont@observer.co.uk

Write to Ian Black, Middle East editor at the Guardian
Email: ian.black@guardian.co.uk

Write to Paul Reynolds at BBC Online:
Email: Paul.Reynolds3@bbc.co.uk

http://medialens.org/alerts/index.php

Have Your Say: Iraq body count: BBC and other mainstream media use misleading figures
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Britain ‘no longer closest Bush ally’

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

By Toby Harnden

The White House no longer views Britain as its most loyal ally in Europe since Gordon Brown took office and is instead increasingly turning towards France and Germany, according to Bush administration sources.

“There’s concern about Brown,” a senior White House foreign policy official told The Daily Telegraph. “But this is compensated by the fact that Paris and Berlin are much less of a headache. The need to hinge everything on London as the guarantor of European security has gone.”


	Nicolas Sarkozy is seen by many as the man Bush can best do business with in Europe

With Tony Blair departed, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is seen by many as the man George W Bush can best do business with in Europe. Although Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has not lived up to initial expectations in Washington, she is still seen as far preferable to her predecessor Gerhard Schröder.

The White House official added that Britain would always be “the cornerstone” of US policy towards Europe but there was “a lot of unhappiness” about how British forces had performed in Basra and an acceptance that Mr Brown would pull the remaining 4,500 troops out of Iraq next year.

Speedy Sarkozy named and shamed

Britain has become a ‘permissive’ environment for terrorists

Analyisis: Brown’s numbers game in Iraq

“Operationally, British forces have performed poorly in Basra,” said the official. “Maybe it’s best that they leave. Now we will have a clear field in southern Iraq.” Another White House official described Mr Brown as “challenging” and far less close to the US than Mr Blair.

There has been a notable reduction in contact between Downing Street and the White House since Mr Blair left and US officials have remarked on how few British ministers have visited Washington in recent months.

Mr Brown and Mr Bush are understood to have spoken twice by telephone in three months since they met at Camp David in June, whereas Mr Blair and Mr Bush held video-link conferences, often weekly.

Kurt Volker, a senior State Department official with responsibility for Europe, disagreed with the White House official’s view, arguing that the British withdrawal to the airport in Basra was a “tactical” decision and that the predicted chaos “hasn’t happened”.

He told The Daily Telegraph that Mr Brown had shown “a lot more steadiness than maybe people expected” and while his style had been very different from that of Tony Blair there had been “a lot of consistency” over policy.

But Mr Volker emphasised that “things are changing in Europe” and paid tribute to Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, both for visiting Iraq and for warning over Iran that the world had to “prepare for the worst and the worst is war”.

“Kouchner’s comments were very helpful because what he is indicating is that this is serious. It’s not just a matter of playing out diplomacy forever with no result. It’s got to provide a result.”

Privately, White House aides accept that Mr Brown would not support military action against Iran. There is also disquiet about what US officials view as double dealing by special advisers briefing an anti-White House message in London and a more favourable one in Washington. “That sort of manoeuvring is not appreciated,” said one diplomatic source.

The wariness about Mr Brown could open doors to the Conservative Party.

Owen Paterson, the shadow Northern Ireland secretary, recently met several key White House officials, including Barry Jackson, who recently took over many of Karl Rove’s duties as a policy adviser to Mr Bush.

A British diplomatic source said: “In the White House there’s a sense of enormous change from Blair. They used to be on the phone to Blair all the time and that’s no longer the case because Brown clearly wants to be the unBlair.

“At the Pentagon, there’s a feeling that Britain is letting the side down on Iraq. The new best friend is Sarkozy and that means Brown taking a step back doesn’t matter as much. In White House eyes, Sarkozy is taking up the slack from Blair. “When things get tough, however, they’re likely to turn to Britain again.”

Have Your Say: Britain ‘no longer closest Bush ally’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Why is Rudy Giuliani basing his campaign on 911?

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

By Geezer Power

Mayor Giuliani was warned that the WTC tower was going to collapse.

Rudy Giuliani is interviewed by ABC News 12:01 pm 9/11/01 where he mentioned that he was told that the WTC tower was going to collapse.
He didn’t say it was going to fall or that it was going down. He specifically used the word “collapse”. The Mayor of New York knew that the building was going to collapse. Wouldn’t this indicate that he allready knew that there would be an event? An event that he is now using as a platform for his run for the presidency.

Video complements of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Republican Opponents Afraid To Attack Giuliani On 9/11

Huffington post

Sam Stein September 28, 2007 12:10 PM

Rudy Giuliani has made his performance on Sept. 11 the dominant pillar of his campaign, a strategy that has proved at once effective and controversial. While the former New York City mayor finds himself atop national polls and well-positioned to capture the Republican nomination, he has also exposed himself to criticism that he is overstating his terrorism credentials and crassly politicizing the issue.

Yet just three months before the first primary vote is cast, none of Giuliani’s top-tier primary opponents have taken the bait.

Despite privately acknowledging that there is ample ammunition to attack Giuliani for his handling of and work after 9/11, the GOP presidential frontrunners have been either too cautious or afraid to speak out. Their silence underscores a strategic calculation that Giuliani’s 9/11 record will be picked apart by Democrats, and other foes of Rudy; but also a fear that bringing up the terrorism issue could backfire.

Have Your Say: Why is Rudy Giuliani basing his campaign on 911?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

BBC DJ apology over ‘fake’ phone-in - yet more and more BBC Total deceit uncovered

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

The Press Association

Radio 1 DJ Jo Whiley is due to make an on-air apology following the revelation that a staff member posed as a caller during a phone competition.

In the latest fakery row to hit the BBC, the employee pretended to be an audience member for a pre-recorded segment of the show in which a number of CDs were up for grabs.

Whiley, a former Sony Radio Awards DJ of the Year, is said to have been unaware of the deceit.

It took place in April last year, but only came to light following the BBC’s publication of editorial breaches within the corporation.

The corporation said on Tuesday that a number of staff members had been disciplined as a result of the incident.

A statement from the BBC read: “A pre-recorded section of Radio 1’s Jo Whiley Show on April 20 2006 featured a phone competition in which a member of BBC staff posed as a caller from the audience.

It added: “We would like to make clear that Jo Whiley was unaware that the caller was not a genuine member of the public.”

The “competition” was broadcast during a pre-recorded two-hour section of Whiley’s three-hour show.

She pre-recorded two thirds of her show to attend a reception for the opening of the newly refurbished Broadcasting House, the BBC’s radio headquarters in London, an event which was attended by the Queen.

All the show was presented to listeners as though it was live.

Have Your Say: BBC DJ apology over ‘fake’ phone-in - yet more and more BBC Total deceit uncovered
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Revealed: CIA offered $2m to Lockerbie witness and brother

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

By LUCY ADAMS

The CIA offered $2m (£1m) to the Crown’s key witness in the Lockerbie trial and his brother, sources close to the case have told The Herald.

Recently discovered papers show Scottish police officers investigating the 1988 bombing were aware the US intelligence service had discussed financial terms and witness protection schemes with Tony Gauci and his brother, Paul.

They documented the talks and it would have been standard practice for such information to have been relayed to the prosecution team before the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan serving 27 years for the bombing.

However, his defence team was never told of the CIA offer, in what critics say is another example of non-disclosure that undermines the credibility of Mr Gauci and, in turn, the Crown’s case against Megrahi.

It has not been confirmed that the brothers accepted any money, but the fact that an offer was made is directly relevant to the credibility of Tony Gauci, who became the lynchpin of the case. Paul was never called as a witness.

The latest remarkable twist comes a day after The Herald revealed a top-secret document vital to the truth about Lockerbie was obtained by the Crown but never disclosed to the defence.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found that document during its three-year investigation, which concluded earlier this year that Megrahi should have a fresh appeal.

The document, thought to be from the CIA, contains highly classified information about the MST13 timer which allegedly detonated the bomb. The Crown, for national security reasons, is still refusing to hand the material over to the defence.

An offer of remuneration by the US agency could be explained by the political imperative then for the US and Britain to secure a conviction for Lockerbie. At the time, Libya was very much a hostile nation, unlike the more relaxed links between Tripoli and the West which now prevail.

Yesterday in Edinburgh, the defence lodged its case with the appeal court and a preliminary hearing has been set for a week tomorrow.

The defence team also lodged a specification of documents order, demanding the Crown release the classified document. Prosecutors are expected to challenge the appeal, despite the weight of new evidence.

A source close to the case said: “We understand the commission found new documents which refer to discussions between the US intelligence agency and the Gaucis and that the sum involved was as much as $2m.

“Even if they did not receive the money, the fact these discussions took place should have been divulged to the defence.”

The Herald has also seen copies of an agreement with the US government and signed by a senior member of the Crown Office, agreeing not to disclose certain material.

Norman McFadyen, then one of the leading members of the prosecution team and now the Crown Agent, signed the non-disclosure agreement on June 1, 2000.

James Chalmers, a senior lecturer in law at Edinburgh University, said if a member of the Crown agreed not to disclose material shown by a foreign government, it called its worth into question.

“This would raise questions about whether the right to a fair trial has been breached. And if a witness were offered money before giving evidence, this could undermine their credibility.

“It would certainly need to be put to the witness under cross-examination. If such information was not disclosed to the defence, that could give rise to a miscarriage of justice. It is an issue of credibility.”

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, said: “It is shocking to me that if after 19 years of trying to get to the truth about who murdered my daughter, national security is being used as an excuse.”

A spokesman for the Crown Office has previously declined to comment on the case saying it would be “wholly inappropriate” while it is before the appeal court.

Have Your Say: Revealed: CIA offered $2m to Lockerbie witness and brother
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Diana jury told to consider multiple conspiracy theories

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

By Robert Verkaik

The jury at the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed will explore 10 key elements supporting the conspiracy theory that the couple were murdered on the express orders of the Royal Family.

Lord Justice Scott Baker, the coroner presiding over the six-month-long inquiry into the fatal car crash in a Paris underpass 10 years ago, said yesterday that it was important that the court “got to the truth”.

This, said the judge, would mean that the six women and five men jurors must consider not just Mohammed al Fayed’s allegations that Diana and his son were killed because the establishment did not want them to marry, but other conspiracies that might come before the court.

Addressing the jury, the coroner said: “You may think that all the evidence largely points to the collision being a tragic accident… and that the cause was driver error.” But he said that, from the night of the crash, Mr Fayed had “not accepted” that explanation and had not wavered from that conclusion.

The judge said that Mr Fayed was not alone in his suspicions. “There are many members of the public who are concerned that something sinister may lie behind circumstances surrounding the events of that night. What we are going to get to is the truth… so we will look at some allegations which have publicly been advanced in support of various conspiracy theories, even if they are not supported by Mr Fayed.”

The coroner has isolated what he described as 10 key issues for the jury to consider relating to the alleged Fayed conspiracy. These include that the driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul, was an informant working for MI6 and the French security services and that “there was a determination to wrongly portray him as a drunk driver”. Other central issues include the suggestion that the crash was caused by stun guns fired by MI6 agents in the underpass. The jury will also investigate Mr Fayed’s contention that Diana was pregnant when she died and that this fact was concealed by the embalming process.

Later in the inquest, the court will hear evidence of the princess’s state of mind shortly before her death.

The coroner said: “There is no doubt that Diana expressed fears from time to time about her personal safety, including the possibility of a staged car accident.” But he added that “expressions of these fears ” predated her relationship with Dodi Fayed.

Setting out the background to the events leading up to her death, the coroner said that “they took place in a time of Diana’s life when things must have been very traumatic and stressful for her. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the breakdown of her marriage, her emotions may have been overriding her more logical thoughts!”.

The jury was told Mr al Fayed had said the princess had directly told him of her fears about being murdered by the Royal Family, saying that one day she would “go up in a helicopter and never come down alive”.

Have Your Say: Diana jury told to consider multiple conspiracy theories
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 pm and is filed under Activism News, General, War & Terrorism News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: