Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
4,000 U.S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images
BAGHDAD - The case of a freelance photographer in Iraq who was barred from covering the Marines after he posted photos on the Internet of several of them dead has underscored what some journalists say is a growing effort by the American military to control graphic images from the war.
Zoriah Miller, the photographer who took images of marines killed in a June 26 suicide attack and posted them on his Web site, was subsequently forbidden to work in Marine Corps-controlled areas of the country. Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the Marine commander in Iraq, is now seeking to have Mr. Miller barred from all United States military facilities throughout the world. Mr. Miller has since left Iraq.
Click here to see the New York Times slide show.
If the conflict in Vietnam was notable for open access given to journalists - too much, many critics said, as the war played out nightly in bloody newscasts - the Iraq war may mark an opposite extreme: after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers.
It is a complex issue, with competing claims often difficult to weigh in an age of instant communication around the globe via the Internet, in which such images can add to the immediate grief of families and the anger of comrades still in the field.
While the Bush administration faced criticism for overt political manipulation in not permitting photos of flag-draped coffins, the issue is more emotional on the battlefield: local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. Most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy.
But opponents of the war, civil liberties advocates and journalists argue that the public portrayal of the war is being sanitized and that Americans who choose to do so have the right to see - in whatever medium - the human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans.
Journalists say it is now harder, or harder than in the earlier years, to accompany troops in Iraq on combat missions. Even memorial services for killed soldiers, once routinely open, are increasingly off limits. Detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the Department of Defense, citing prisoners' rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.
And while publishing photos of American dead is not barred under the "embed" rules in which journalists travel with military units, the Miller case underscores what is apparently one reality of the Iraq war: that doing so, even under the rules, can result in expulsion from covering the war with the military.
"It is absolutely censorship," Mr. Miller said. "I took pictures of something they didn't like, and they removed me. Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don't see a clearer definition of censorship."
The Marine Corps denied it was trying to place limits on the news media and said Mr. Miller broke embed regulations. Security is the issue, officials said.
"Specifically, Mr. Miller provided our enemy with an after-action report on the effectiveness of their attack and on the response procedures of U.S. and Iraqi forces," said Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a Marine spokesman.
News organizations say that such restrictions are one factor in declining coverage of the war, along with the danger, the high cost to financially ailing media outlets and diminished interest among Americans in following the war. By a recent count, only half a dozen Western photographers were covering a war in which 150,000 American troops are engaged.
In Mr. Miller's case, a senior military official in Baghdad said that while his photographs were still under review, a preliminary assessment showed he had not violated ground rules established by the multinational force command. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, emphasized that Mr. Miller was still credentialed to work in Iraq, though several military officials acknowledged that no military unit would accept him.
Robert H. Reid, the Baghdad bureau chief for The Associated Press, said one major problem was a disconnection between the officials in Washington who created the embed program before the war and the soldiers who must accommodate journalists - and be responsible for their reports afterward.
"I don't think the uniformed military has really bought into the whole embed program," Mr. Reid said.
"During the invasion it got a lot of 'Whoopee, we're kicking their butts'-type of TV coverage," he said.
Now, he said the situation is nuanced and unpredictable. Generally, he said, the access reporters get "very much depends on the local commander." More specifically, he said, "They've always been freaky about bodies."
The facts of the Miller case are not in dispute, only their interpretation.
On the morning of June 26, Mr. Miller, 32, was embedded with Company E of the Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment in Garma, in Anbar Province. The photographer declined a Marine request to attend a city council meeting, and instead accompanied a unit on foot patrol nearby.
When a suicide bomber detonated his vest inside the council meeting, killing 20 people, including 3 marines, Mr. Miller was one of the first to arrive. His photos show a scene of horror, with body parts littering the ground and heaps of eviscerated corpses. Mr. Miller was able to photograph for less than 10 minutes, he said, before being escorted from the scene.
Mr. Miller said he spent three days on a remote Marine base editing his photos, which he then showed to the Company E marines. When they said they could not identify the dead marines, he believed he was within embed rules, which forbid showing identifiable soldiers killed in action before their families have been notified. According to records Mr. Miller provided, he posted his photos on his Web site the night of June 30, three days after the families had been notified.
The next morning, high-ranking Marine public affairs officers demanded that Mr. Miller remove the photos. When he refused, his embed was terminated. Worry that marines might hurt him was high enough that guards were posted to protect him.
On July 3, Mr. Miller was given a letter signed by General Kelly barring him from Marine installations. The letter said that the journalist violated sections 14 (h) and (o) of the embed rules, which state that no information can be published without approval, including material about "any tactics, techniques and procedures witnessed during operations," or that "provides information on the effectiveness of enemy techniques."
"In disembedding Mr. Miller, the Marines are using a catch-all phrase which could be applied to just about anything a journalist does," said Joel Campagna, Middle East program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists.
New embed rules were adopted in the spring of 2007 that required written permission from wounded soldiers before their image could be used, a near impossibility in the case of badly wounded soldiers, journalists say. While embed restrictions do permit photographs of dead soldiers to be published once family members have been notified, in practice, photographers say, the military has exacted retribution on the rare occasions that such images have appeared. In four out of five cases that The New York Times was able to document, the photographer was immediately kicked out of his or her embed following publication of such photos.
In the first of such incidents, Stefan Zaklin, formerly of the European Pressphoto Agency, was barred from working with an Army unit after he published a photo of a dead Army captain lying in a pool of blood in Falluja in 2004.
Two New York Times journalists were disembedded in January 2007 after the paper published a photo of a mortally wounded soldier. Though the soldier was shot through the head and died hours after the photo was taken, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno argued that The Times had broken embed rules by not getting written permission from the soldier.
Chris Hondros, of Getty Images, was with an army unit in Tal Afar on Jan. 18, 2005, when soldiers killed the parents of an unarmed Iraqi family. After his photos of their screaming blood-spattered daughter were published around the world, Mr. Hondros was kicked out of his embed (though Mr. Hondros points out that he soon found an embed with a unit in another city).
Increasingly, photographers say the military allows them to embed but keeps them away from combat. Franco Pagetti of the VII Photo Agency said he had been repeatedly thwarted by the military when he tried to get to the front lines.
In April 2008, Mr. Pagetti tried to cover heavy fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City. "The commander there refused to let me in," Mr. Pagetti said. "He said it was unsafe. I know it's unsafe, there's a war going on. It was unsafe when I got to Iraq in 2003, but the military did not stop us from working. Now, they are stopping us from working."
James Lee, a former marine who returned to Iraq as a photographer, was embedded with marines in the spring of 2008 as they headed into battle in the southern port city of Basra in support of Iraqi forces.
"We were within hours of Basra when they told me I had to go back. I was told that General Kelly did not want any Western eyes down there," he said, referring to the same Marine general who barred Mr. Miller.
Military officials stressed that the embed regulations provided only a framework. "There is leeway for commanders to make judgment calls, which is part of what commanders do," said Col. Steve Boylan, the public affairs officer for Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq. For many in the military, a legal or philosophical debate over press freedom misses the point. Capt. Esteban T. Vickers of the First Regimental Combat Team, who knew two of the marines killed at Garma, said photos of his dead comrades, displayed on the Internet for all to see, desecrated their memory and their sacrifice.
"Mr. Miller's complete lack of respect to these marines, their friends, and families is shameful," Captain Vickers said. "How do we explain to their children or families these disturbing pictures just days after it happened?"
Mr. Miller, who returned to the United States on July 9, expressed surprise that his images had ignited such an uproar.
"The fact that the images I took of the suicide bombing - which are just photographs of something that happens every day all across the country - the fact that these photos have been so incredibly shocking to people, says that whatever they are doing to limit this type of photo getting out, it is working," he said.
Michael Kamber reported from Baghdad, and Tim Arango from New York.
© 2008 The New York Times



83 Comments so far
Show AllHmmm. I hope this doesn't mean that human beings get injured when they are in a war zone.
~ Does it really mean that?
Does this mean that those guys who go off fighting Burning-Bush's insane war for no sane reason might really get their asses blown off?
~ And their heads too?
Dang. I didn't realise that could happen.
Just as well that our governments are kind towards us, and helpfully protect us from seeing just what a pig's ear they are making of this, - and their many other dirty little wars...
"God enslave America" we say!
"Vote Moron!"
~ "Eat lies and pretend the war ain't really happening!"
"Now what's on the other channel I wonder..."
?
:(
Bush and his neocons gave our military the mission to win at any cost. Showing these pictures forms public opinion that hinders their mission so the military rebels against it.
But the military cannot act without the orders of the President, their Commander in Chief and in this case, his boot-licking politicized generals.
In a democracy We the People outrank the commander in chief. We need ALL the information in order to make informed decisions. Government censorship by means of "national security" excuses or "too cruel to show the public" excuses has to end. There is nothing We the People, the highest authority, should be kept from seeing.
When the dogs of war are loosened, they are difficult and sometimes impossible to control. But this is a case of a military carrying out improper orders from a rogue, mutinous, treasonous Republican President, his administration and his conservative collaborators.
These people need to be tried for their high crimes to set an example for future administrations. If they propose to make a deal to get retroactive pardons in return for not bombing Iran for example, this should be made public. The more secrecy there is, the less democracy there is.
Nowadays "loose lips do not sink ships". Crapulent conservative dictators do and they'll sink the world with them.
The NYTimes of all papers is pointing out sanitized coverage? My goodness, the same paper that along with Bush lied us into this war to begin with, with endless fake WMD Judith Miller articles?
With what authority can this paper even mention sanitized coverage? Note that there's not a word about civilian casualties, only combat deaths. Talk about sanitizing the real horrors of this immoral, illegal occupation!
Another Gift from the Republican Bush/Cheney Crime Cartel.
McKinney, Bless her soul, drew 25 to a rally the other day.
Nader is invested in Raytheon=Cluster Bombs=Dead Maimed Children.
Obama '08. Gore head of the EPA. Kucinich V.P. McKinney-A Cabinet Post.
It is a two party system true enousgh: but there ARE Differences.
Obama/Kucinich '08.
Michael Herr's "Dispatches" is a compelling account of reporting and journalism in Vietnam. It's been a while since I (re)read it, but my impression is that every variation of international journalist was permitted in-country, from independent self-declared journalists and photographers to writers on assignment from mainstream periodicals (including Playboy and Rolling Stone), to teevee network correspondents and newspaper reporters. (Which still maintained "bureau"s in foreign countries at that time.)
The military and government had their own full-scale media and public relations operations there too, of course-- their afternoon news briefings are commemorated in the phrase "Jive at Five".
Naturally, warmongers on both the retail and wholesale levels came to regard these maverick journalists as problems, and even enemies. Warmongers and jingoist chauvinists (dignified as "patriots"), always ready to buy into the "dolchstoss" myth-- that worthy causes and enterprises are crippled by "back-stabbers"-- deeply resented the freedom and access accorded to such journalists. In a nutshell, whether perceived as nuisances or renegades, they could not be CONTROLLED.
It's not much of a jump to likewise conclude that the unvarnished truth would not sit well with the public, and that by inducing public resistance that undermined the ill-conceived military adventure, these tattletales were doing the Enemy's work and causing the US to "lose" the "war".
A generation later, the military-corporate complex and reactionary hindsight combined to almost entirely abolish the adversarial nature of the relationship between the "watchdog" Fourth Estate and the government. The watchdog was now virtually toothless; witness the likes of Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, the latter still assiduously licking the military hands that pet him, and keeping his snout embedded in the collective military crotch.
Thus, the "win-win" concept of "embedded journalism" was born. It's diabolically ingenious: instead of allowing, much less tolerating, journalists to move around freely at their own risk, and gather such news as they may according to each individual's assignment or interest, journalists would be "welcomed" into military units. The military would supposedly assist the journalist in producing top-notch reporting to satisfy the People's Right to Know without a lot of counterproductive mixed signals.
From the government/military perspective, this was indeed a win-win setup. The credulous reporter who already admired the military and accepted its mission as honorable and worthy arrived already co-opted; he or she became an instant Ernie Pyle, buddy and advocate of the ordinary GI or grunt. Journalists dazzled by the perks of embedding could be relied upon to provide reporting compatible with the mission; there is no incentive for them to go poking around or pushing the embed envelope.
And the skeptical, even cynical, reporter could at least be controlled, in the unlikely chance that he or she accepted this deal with the devil in the first place.
With this totalitarian control of information in place in the theater of occupation, and a corresponding rigid censorship by our imperialist government at home, it's no surprise that the untidy and downright appalling consequences of our military adventures have been fairly successfully repressed.
Sadly, it must be said that the public has also adapted to the government/military control of information. Given a nice, deep, dark hole in which to park their heads, many citizens readily take the plunge. Unlike those searing Vietnam images-- the napalmed little girl running in terror, the alleged Viet Cong spy summarily executed by a Vietnamese officer's .45-caliber bullet-- such images as HAVE been released, including the infamous Abu Ghraib photos, haven't sparked a national outcry.
I think this has to do with the national psychosis induced by the mysterious events of 9/11, and also perhaps because the generally effective campaign of censorship allows ordinary people to delude themselves that this undeniable proof of atrocity is the exception, not the rule.
In fact, aggressive imperialist military operations ARE atrocities, and the deliberate suppression and censorship of the myriad demonstrations of this truth is itself a war crime.
A picture is worth a thousand words is what they believe and the government thinks that it was the images of reality in Viet Nam that caused us to end the war.... but they think "Lost the War"
Now since the military aim is not to loose another war, all images and reports are sanitized or removed and those who practice freedom are punished.
The surge was actually a military necessity to not lose the war because the insurgents (al Shmida Mind controlled bin laden fans) were lobbing mortars into the green Zone so the US-military had no choice but to protect the castle's perimeter... the Surge.
Now the winding down in Iraq can happen with the ability for a Prez to declare victory and leave.
(Impossible just before the surge).
But the war will pick up in Pakistan and Afghanistan for a short time but I think Obama will try for a "lets work it out" so that we can end the war on terror.
Everyone with a brain knows you cannot win a war on terror..the War racket causes terror and always has.
Anybody with a brain knows that..
I think even Bush is positioning himself to escape the new reality... we will begin to END the War on terror.
Viva the Revolution!
On the other hand, I recall having seen many, many images of dead and injured Iraqis since the invasion started. Seemingly, there is little concern on the part of the military for the dignity of these people and their families.
Truly the stuff of Fascism at all levels.
The U.S. citizenry is paying through the nose for this illegal occupation operation in Iraq and elsewhere.
Talk about consumer fraud! We are hounded into paying for 'products' we don't even get see pictures of. The ultimate capitalistic rip-off.
Think about it. Our so-called reps approve payment for actions we do not want and refuse to buy others we do want, like education, healthcare, safe infrastructure, consumer protection, and...., and....
And regarding lisa3210peace's 1:26 pm blather above:
Attacking Nader by linking him with Raytheon investment is unintellectual, the same kind of kooky level of attacks on Gore for having a big electric bill. All of the meaty Nader/Raytheon information I could find by searching today is from around the year 2000. He may have owned a portfolio that included Ratheon shares back then. Everything I can find on the topic on the web since then is regurgitated by Nader haters.
Guess what? Investments are complex. The shitty little 5% "retirement" 401K I have through my employer offers a variety of funds to invest in, and they always counsel to invest in a mix of high and low risk, depending on your age. I paid little attention to it until recently, when I realized that some of these funds may, if I dug deeply enough into the fine print, include companies that are loathsome. At that point I changed things.
Nader has been a champion for the consumer for 40 years. He's an intelligent, thoughtful, busy man, who, if I may guess, does not give his investments a lot of thought, because he's busy doing more important things. Add to this mix people determined to uncover negative things about a controversial public figure.
My guess is that Nader dumped Raytheon, to whatever extent he was investing in it, many years ago. He could not conscionably own such stock while doing what he does and taking the positions that he does. Similarly, Gore spent even more money to make his energy use renewable, something he was already doing before the out-of-proportion criticism leveled against him over the past few years. Everything since then is mindless echo chamber crap that doesn't amount to much.
Hypocrisy is not one of Nader's big faults, and neither is it Gore's. These are highly principled men. I wish more people would learn to distinguish real principle from fake.
When Nader starts telling us why we progressives can't unite and get our shit together because we are too busy throwing political mud at each other.... If Nader doesn't understand the basic principles of solidarity for a common cause, He will continue to set himself up as the clownish Idle of political ambition....He has good criticism of the Corporate game, But can he deliver as a leader and not help the greatest evil to control our ship, that is the fundamental question,,, Can you deliver or just distract?
Ya gotta be a nut job to wanna be prez anyway!
yohocoma , your point about the relative abundance of images of Iraqi casualties is a good one.
I reckon that if the censors had their druthers, they'd prefer to suppress ANY evidence of the abominably cruel consequences of military violence-- out of sight, out of mind seems to be the Prime Directive. But they're obviously not as determined to censor images of civilian victims, or rationalize such censorship as "consideration" for the victims portrayed.
Hey 'yohocoma' Nader has at least half a million dollars in Fidelity Magellan.
FM is in turn HEAVILY invested Dow/Napalm, Raytheon/Cluster Bombs/General Dynamics and Wal-Mart and Monsanto to name a few.
You describe understanding this as "complex."
That makes you A; Defending Maiming and Murdering Children.
And B, Really, Honestly Stupid if this is actually "complex" to you as you say it is. Get a child to explain it. One maimed by Raytheon.
Thanks for insulting me. It is always the messenger who is attacked when morons cannot refute or do not like the message.
Obama/Kucinich '08.
To those of us who participated in the Vietnam era ----delivery of Democracy to an oppressed people-----this is just the same ole pile of excrement that we /they served up then.
No matter who is elected to office; if they do not have willing participants to commit these and other atrocities against nature, the environment and other human beings---they will be required to "go and fight these wars themselves"-----and that will NEVER happen.
Take as many images of the dead from this war, display them to children as young as five or in Kindergarten, and teach them that THIS is what comes of Nation Building. Then show them pictures of the participants of this latest fiasco, in prison scrubs----and pictures of their heirs who live under bridges and homeless shelters after the family fortunes were confiscated and given to the survivors of the war they started;
and start NOW----- TEACHING THE NEXT GENERATION(S) THAT WARS OF AGGRESSION ARE ILLEGAL, AND HARMFUL TO THOSE WHO RECEIVE IT BUT MORE HARMFUL TO THOSE WHO EXECUTE IT.
In this way, little children who see these terrible images will not want them to be repeated-----and the one's who think these pictures are amusing can be hospitalized at an early age; rehabilitated---reprogrammed----or held in protective custody (protective for the rest of us that is)---until they are so old as to be harmless.
Otherwise, except for the technological changes in photography, these same pictures appear to be no different from the pictures of the US Civil War, WWI,WWII,Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, the Gulf War and on and on and on----
without willing participants, that is the soldiers in the field, none of these pictures would be possible. There really is a REASON why this administration does not want the reality known------it just might stop people from wanting to participate.
The all volunteer armed forces are made up of children who "played army" and watched John Wayne "in the movies" and learned that killing Your enemy for "Democracy" is "cool".
Then they come back from all of that destruction terribly troubled, or sick, or worse yet "un-troubled" or "un-sick"-----and they promote it for yet one more generation, and it goes on and on.
Stop it NOW -----BECAUSE PEOPLE CANNOT LIVE WITH THIS KIND OF STUPIDITY FOR MUCH LONGER.
Otherwise expect repetition in future generations; until mutual destruction is realized.
LITTLE BROTHER~
That wasn't a .45 autoloader the Vietnamese police chief used against the captured alleged Viet Cong spy, it was a Smith and Wesson internal hammer .38 Special revolver. Not that it makes any difference because the guy's still dead.
Governments and military's will do what they have always done.
The only Constitutionally protected occupation is compromised. The irrefutable First Amendment.
The Press, the Town Crier must be taken away from Fascist hands if the Republic is to survive.
A 100% publicly funded Media is now nessasary. The others can still entertain us and voice clearly disclosed opinions.
The perversly named DOD has spent Trillions of our money.
A DOPI headquartered in Saint Louis, MO. Should have at least a $100 Billion dollar budget.
miftin, thanks for the correction.
I didn't Google the image before I posted, but resorted to my defective memory.
Still, you have to admit that my comment was of the highest caliber. ;)
If you do not know that our news media is censored, sanitized and embedded with the military and administration you are living in a dream world in which you need to wake up from. This is not new and this should not be startling information. Seek your information from sources that exist outside of the USA.
Stop watching television for one week. If you can not do this then you have a problem. An addiction is something you can not stop.
Do yourself a favor cancel your cable and recycle your television. Live your own life instead of vicariously living your life through the lives of others, either real or fictional.
Remember that the propaganda you unknowingly consume eventually consumes you.
lisa3210peace July 26th, 2008 2:27 pm:
Again, the Nader/Fidelity Magellan references on the web seem to center around the year 2000, when that was brought to light from his financial disclosures. There are some more recent references, but mostly personal blog entries which are most likely dredging the same stuff up again. There are a lot of people who love to blame Nader and build up grandiose lists of his supposed sins.
Even in 2000, after over 30 years fighting corporatism and being well aware of the military-financial sector's role in the US, I would think Nader would have been more careful than that. The explanation is likely sloppiness, inattention, and perhaps some exaggeration. Nader gives us no reason to believe he's greedy or an evil closet corporatist. Nader likely has a financial adviser who handles his affairs. As the information on the web notes, the real end products of investments are often buried several layers deep in today's world of complex financial tools.
A more parsimonious explanation is that Nader wasn't aware of all the details - not that Nader really places profit above all else and by whatever method possible. That doesn't fit at all with his life's work.
Unfortunately, you're still using hyperbolic, simplific language (Defending Maiming and Murdering Children! etc.) to sensationalize the issue, so I'm afraid, yes, you're still blathering. Be my guest to be offended.
PissasntNobody: Hello. I read your post, and am a Relativist-Marxist myself.
Your post made perfect sense up to this point "there is no way out, short of a proletariat socialist revolution" so far so good, then "conscious individuals will be working to build a Leninist worker's party..to wipe imperialism from the map..the world."
Marx said clearly that as a capitalist industrial economy became stratified by class, the political devices still 'available' to 'us' would only futher facilitate upward draft of wealth AS population increased, ulimately leading to Revolution once enough people BECAME poor within their own lifetimes. Their own memories.
When you talk about building a program-political party platform, as a vehicle for change I think you contradict Karl Marx. Thoughts?
P.S. It's a conondrum I can relate to, I'm going to vote for the Democrats, but honestly, short of a revolution, I feel it will do little-better however a small improvement than things instantly much worse as we lurch to hell, is my thinking.
The "Heck" with the Republicans.
Dumb On Down, America!
From day one of the invasion in March of '03 the mainstream media has refused to show Americans the true brutality and immorality of this war. Also from the first day it was quite easy, from sources such as UPI, AP, Reuters, AL-Jazeera and other independent and foreign news services, to see plenty of graphically horrific images of innocent children who had been literally blown to pieces by US air-strikes. Bear in mind these are the same resources all the networks use to get material. But musn't let the public see the state-sponsored terrorism they're ignorantly supporting. Heaven forbid they're sense of morality might kick in. Every day the major news media should be required to show, up-close and personal, that day's casualties both American and Iraqi. Unfortunately this is one of the few things learned from the Vietnam war, embed journalists and keep the public in the dark.
We require a DO Education with at least half the budget of the "DOD".
RichM: What are you a disease? Get off me. I've not addressed you-why are you compelled to reply to the questions I ask others?
Reply after illogically extrapolating what I've said to a asinine conclusions.
My guess is you are a Nader Lover who can't handle their boy being invested in Cluster Bombs.
I don't care.
Write a letter to a maimed child if you like to write so much.
RichM: What are you a disease? Get off me. I've not addressed you-why are you compelled to reply to the questions I ask others?
Reply after illogically extrapolating what I've said to asinine conclusions.
My guess is you are a Nader Lover who can't handle their boy being invested in Cluster Bombs.
I don't care.
Write a letter to a maimed child if you like to write so much.
But RichM, take your Badge Off, Thread-Policeman.
I agree with yohocoma on Nader's investments.
Condemning Ralph Nader for having what was probably no more than 0.3% of his assets in Raytheon in 2000, and then only indirectly owned from a mutual fund, makes about as much sense to me as criticizing someone for flying on commercial aircraft made by "military manufacturers" Boeing or Airbus. If someone owns stock in "Apple computer," then a small fraction of their income also comes from military contracts. By the way, Nader sold all his Fidelity Magellan mutual funds before 2004.
Nader's FEC investment listings from 2004 are shown in the news link below. His major holdings from that link are from the following list:
1)NASDAQ 100 Trust Socially Responsible Investment Index Fund - 1.74 million dollars.
2)Fidelity Spartan Money Market Fund - 1.44 million dollars.
3)Cisco Stock 250,000 to 500,000 dollars.
Total (including minor investments) = about 3.8 million dollars.
I do not have an ethical problem with those 2004 investments. According to the FEC listing, the Fidelity Magellan Mutual Fund was less than 7% of his total assets in the year 2000, so his ownership in any one company or "missile manufacturer" from the Fidelity Magellan holding was probably less than 0.3% of his total assets in that year.
I have not seen his FEC financial listings from 2008. They may not be released yet. Also, Nader does not accept campaign contributions from companies, PACs, and unions.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/05/18/election2004/20_36_195_17_04.txt
Hoowee! Spread the word, the almighty NYT has discovered sanitized war news! Someone get Michael Gordon, Robert Brooks, amd Thomas Friendman on the line and let them in on the news!
Maybe lil' Ms. Katie Kouric could have a sit-down on her kaffee-klatsch interview set with the publisher to have a chitty-chat about this.
reh: I googled Fidelity Spartan, Of the top ten firms FS/Nader are invested in I noticed,
1. Exxon
2. Chevron
3. General Electric (Weapons), and
4. Wal-Mart
According to you, Nader has 1.44 mill in these companies.
Did you say you have no ethical problem with a "Progressive" Presidential Candidate being Invested in these Four Companies?
Personally, I have a problem with anybody being invested in them.
1. Google/Go to Fidelity Spartan Fund
2. Click on Investment Products
3. Scroll down to Top Ten Companies/Investments.
Number One is Exxon. I beg your pardon, you said Nader had how much in this fund?
RichM. You are just wrong. I went to Fidelity's web-site. Try It. Get a Child to read it to you. Because it is that simple.
Or is it okay if everybody has "just a little" money invested in Exxon, Raytheon, Dow, General Electric.
Tens of millions of people investing "just a little bit" add up.
No Cluster Bombs. Divest Nader.
Duck, Bob and Weave. "My left hand is clean; my RIGHT hand stabbed her."
So RichM; You sound like a salesman for Fidelity Magellan.
That is filthy.
FM divested because it became so embarressing, but Fidelity Magellan (and Ralph Nader) were invested in Petro-China until recently. In Darfur. Ever heard of them?
AIPAC controls the US media so the average Joe hasn't a clue to the truth. Time to tell your democratically elected official who put him there in the first place. Oh sorry it was the AIPAC and diebold. Your country is so screwed.
Lisa,
You are looking at the wrong information. Your conclusions are incorrect. Ralph Nader's investment was the "Fidelity Spartan Money Market Fund." You have to search specifically for the whole term, not Fidelity Spartan. There are no stocks in this fund. Money Market funds in the US are only in Treasury bonds, bank Certificates of Deposit, or other US government backed securities.
Sorry for the duplicate blank postings earlier this evening. I kept getting server error messages when I tried to post this message.
reh: Hello. Thanks for insisting on breaking this down. And politely no less. While dissecting Nader's investments and FM could, I suspect, go on and on, I think we see it differently.
I freely admit to having problems with Nader. I also heard he's running for president. I also heard I had the right to dissent. Unless I'm on CD?
I also didn't hear but always hope I can support who I want without being attacked. (Democrats, Obama, Mickey Mouse, Who-The Hell-Ever)
RichM: I wish you the best, but because you keep misquoting me, you must go far away.
Most Americans I meet are the first to admit they are being lied to by their media. The real problem is-- they don't care to know the truth. So long as they are able to continue pursuing their own, personal pleasures, they don't want to know the truth and they'll despise anyone who attempts to tell them the truth.
Want to see a shocking video compiliation about this war? It's a short music video, not for the faint of heart.
This video was banned by YouTube. It incorporates images of one of the war's staunchest supporters, Senator Saxby Chambliss and horrific scenes of death and destruction from Iraq.
http://nukular-waste.tripod.com/nukular-waste.htm
Coming in late to a thread about how a photographer has been handed his hat and told to go shoot pictures of Candyland because he's not getting anywhere near the real story anytime soon and seeing it has devolved into a cat fight between a couple of self avowed communistas it seems we have lost some continuity here.
Not that I don't support intelligent discussion but when the rhetoric becomes a he said she said you've both managed to lose.
Now, please continue to tear each others eyes out.
civil behavior. I see your moniker is not monitor-deep, but reflects your values. Nice.
Being busted, you were nice about it after all, makes me smile.
Nice Post. I take the hit.
lisa, I agree with your posts, and yes, your argument fo Kucinich as vp. For one thing, it would give Obama some cover, for then the CIA would have to kill 2 presidents. second of all Kucinich is closer to where Obama really believes (think jfk and read JFK and the Unspeakable by James F Douglass).
lisa, I agree with your posts, and yes, your argument fo Kucinich as vp. For one thing, it would give Obama some cover, for then the CIA would have to kill 2 presidents. second of all Kucinich is closer to where Obama really believes (think jfk and read JFK and the Unspeakable by James F Douglass).
This war has been sanitized more by not showing the victims of our war and occupation. 4,000 US vs. 1,000,000 + Iraqis. We might see the aftermath of an "Al Qaeda" suicide bombing, but rarely ever a US air strike.
RichM and reh, I wouldn't waste time with Lisa.
"Lisa - please demonstrate specifically where I misquoted you. I believe I merely demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. Examine my post at 8:33, and try to disprove my assertions."
She won't do it. She can't do it. She'll be blathering about Nader again tomorrow. but here's your opportunity, Lisa, go ahead and prove us wrong.
Hello PissantNobody. "The lack of popular communist leadership is thus something that particularly needs to be adressed at this time." Do I agree with that.
Very respectfully, No. As I understand Marx and Communism, Marx stated Communism would only be the child of bloody revolution. But Not from agrarian to industrial economies, like Russia in 1917 or our own Civil War but rather from imperialist/capitalist economies, as we are now, to a post/capitalist communist society.
As I understand Marx, the .01%, the 1%, will increasingly concentrate the wealth, we see this, as the population increases-what Marx called the Motor of History.
Thus the weakest politically, the poor, the old, the uneducated, and again the poor are increasingly disenfrachised and impoverished, until finally, ONCE THEY EXPERIENCE A RADICAL DIMINISHING IN THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING, then, according to KM they will rise up, and through force will, take back what is ours. (Stolen property is not "theirs.")
Given this dynamic, no "building of a party" can do much to alter history.
Even so, I'll vote for Obama, I feel he is less evil than mccain. Though FISA and Afghanistan are an absolute and total drag.
Most Best regards.
This article and the Pilger one should be read by everyone. It shows what war really is: a brutal, bloody enterprise carried out by amoral savages for economic or military gain.
There is no glory in war. It diminishes all who involve themselves with it. But it will never stop while capitalism reigns because war means profit. For some!
P.S. Obama is out of the same political litter that Bush came from. He won't be any different.
www.dangerouscreation.com
Lisa,
What do you think of Ralph Nader?
Are you going to vote for Obama?
Just the cost of the oil used in Iraq (3 million per day) by our military could probably provide for free education and health.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/46021
I think that the $500bn military cost per year + $500 extra allocations + whatever Blackwater is costing us are what is bringing the US economy to a halt. I am glad in a way. There has to be some cost to the perpetrator. I hope that the economy collapses to the point where the US can no longer afford all of this war. Unfortunately, the pain will not be limited to those who voted for the war.
Yet another article which amazes me! Is this the only thing which makes war wrong - the 4000 deaths incurred by an invading army? What about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and the millions of displaced refugees? What about the infrastructure of that country, destroyed beyond recognition?
What does it say about the "morals" of a "Christian" country, when it allows young people to join a "crusade", a "war on terror", against a country which was never a threat to us?
It has got to the point, where only British or US casualties are reported in our news, describing them as heroes, who died "defending their country".
They died to re establish Western interests in Iraqi oil, they died to make more money for the ruling elite, and they died to satisfy other people's "blood lust"!
I think it's disgusting that the New York Times had the gall to attempt to give itself the moral high ground by publishing this piece. As several have mentioned above, it has been their uncritical, sanitized coverage that has been "manufacturing consent" for the Bush regime since 2001. It is akin to the editorial they printed several years ago (my guess is 2004) apologizing for having not been more critical of the evidence claiming there were WMD in Iraq, claiming that it "seemed" Sadam must have had WMD because of the shifty way he was acting. I saw an interview with Elizabeth Bumiller once on CSPAN, around 2003: someone in the audience asked her how she felt about the NYT helping to lead us into an unjust war, and she utterly denied that the paper had any impact on public opinion or on the reality of war...she claimed the paper just "reports" events and doesn't "create" them. It seems the NYT is perpetually in "out out damn spot" mode. As far as I know, they didn't even report on the pseudo-impeachment hearing that took place on Friday. And never mentioned Kucinich during the primaries. Ugh, disgusting, disgusting.
For all our fellow Marxists, All this talk about Marx and arguing about what he said, a Jewish reporter with Rothschilds backing, I will just clear up this bit of speculation now with some good ol' Psychic recall. If Marx was alive today, he would agree with Fidel that Obama is the most progressive choice...
So go stuff that in your imaginary Dictatorship of the Marxists who can't agree on what the fuck Marx wanted.
Keeping the terrible imagines caused by this war has the effect of minimizing the terrible costs in human suffering from the public. The public doesn't have the reminder there every night on television that Bush started a useless war that American's are getting killed in. They aren't being forced to witness the devastation to a country that wasn't a threat to us. I am certain if the images of dead marines were displayed prominently every night it would be no time at all and the public would be screaming louder to stop the waste. The Bush Administration knows it! They aren't that stupid. They know where the pitfalls were in the Viet Nam War coverage. Which is why they are doing it the way they are. It's like the old saying goes 'Out of sight out of mind'! The public quickly forgets what they aren't being forced to watch nightly. Which is why so many American's are for McCain and his war machine. It's really sad that so many Americans are really that shallow!
THE TRUTH???? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!
See post by 'civil behavior,' 9:59 p.m. 7/26.
This thoughtful post says it all.
Let's try being only positive.
Note: Senate Republican are currently doing everything possible to block a Heating Aid Bill being pushed by Democrats that would help the poor.
And Pelosi/the Democrats are doing everything politically possible to stop the push for offshore drilling in the ANWR, which the Republicans are pushing, as she and other Democrats.
Same Old Story. The GOP is the party of the rich.
The Democrats are the party of the rich, with occasional provisions for the middle class and poor.
If I'm wrong, how are the above facts true re the heating Bill and the push to drill in the ANWR?
These fights are pretty much along party lines. Democrats, no drill, For Heating for poor.
Republicans, Drill, no heating assistance for poor.
Same old story.
The Democrats are pushing to pass a Heating Aid Bill in the Senate. It is being blocked by Republicans. It would help poor people.
Republicans are pushing to drill in the ANWR. This effort would help Big Oil Profits, help the rich, and hurt the Environment. It is opposed by Democrats. Even Pelosi.
These are differences. Renditions.
Signing Statements.
Torture might be another one.
Treason as well.