[Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald: Helen Thomas interrupts Obama
talking about Neda video to ask a real question
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Wed Jun 24 13:51:57 CDT 2009
The fact that "we" (who ever that "we" is) find the Neda video shocking
and iconic is a testimony to how far the once great American society has
fallen.
That's not to minimize the loss or the sorrow or the shame or the
heroics of the dissenters.
We are unfamiliar with Patriots and Tyrants resisting one another unto
blood, and are shocked and mortified (vicariously) that real social change
does actually require such a price. In fact, it is the collective and
individual unwillingness to pay the price for a real government that
accounts
for the ersatz clown posse of looters that Americans seem to be willing
to accept as "government".
The tree of liberty demands frequent watering with the blood of tyrants
and patriots.
Those unwilling to see the price paid are both unworthy patriots and
indeed rather silly tyrants as well.
On the other hand, the utter depravity of torture and the stifling of
dissent and the trashing of the Constitution doesnt
put Americans in very good position for pointing out the faults of other
nations.
*Quo usque tandem abutere, America, patientia nostra*?
One about half expects some thief to slip up on somnambulent America,
and collectively render unto it the equivalent of being hit over the
head with a "sock full of shit" as Patton warned. The other half
expects the blessed event to provoke some loud and raucous cheering among
those from whom we have well-deserved calumny and dishonour.
It's not the only possible outcome, but it's the most likely we can't
muster enough numbers and gumption to force real change not this Obacrap
parsed
with emphasis.
On 6/24/2009 1:17 PM, John Fettig wrote:
> http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/24/photos/index.html
>
>
> The "Neda video," torture, and the truth-revealing power of images
>
> *The President's remarks on the images of Iranian violence are in
> conflict with his suppression efforts at home.*
>
> *Glenn Greenwald*
>
> Jun. 24, 2009 |
>
> *(updated below - Update II - Update III)*
>
> The single most significant event in shaping worldwide revulsion
> towards the violence of the Iranian government has been the video of
> the young Iranian woman bleeding to death, the so-called "Neda video."
> <http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.woman.twitter/>
> Like so many iconic visual images before it -- from My Lai, fire hoses
> and dogs unleashed at civil rights protesters, Abu Ghraib -- that
> single image has done more than the tens of thousands of words to
> dramatize the violence and underscore the brutality of the state
> response.
>
> For the last question at his press conference yesterday
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/main5107407.shtml>, Obama
> was asked by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux about his reaction to that video
> and to reports that Iranians are refraining from protesting due to
> fear of such violence. As Obama was answering -- attesting to how
> "heartbreaking" he found the video; how "anybody who sees it knows
> that there's something fundamentally unjust" about the violence; and
> paying homage to "certain international norms of freedom of speech,
> freedom of expression" -- Helen Thomas, who hadn't been called on,
> interrupted to ask Obama to reconcile those statements about
> the Iranian images with his efforts at home to suppress America's own
> torture photos ("Then why won't you allow the photos --").
>
> The President quickly cut her off with these remarks:
>
> THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That's a different
> question. (Laughter.)
>
> The White House Press corps loves to laugh condescendingly at Helen
> Thomas because, tenaciously insisting that our sermons to others be
> applied to our own Government, she acts like a real reporter (exactly
> as -- according to /Politic//o/'s Josh Gerstein
> <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24087_Page2.html#ixzz0JHNOMKTP&D> --
> White House reporters "could be seen rolling their eyes and shifting
> in their seats" when Obama called on/The Huffington Post/'s Nico
> Pitney, who has done some of the most tireless work on Iran, gave
> voice to actual Iranians, and posed one of the toughest questions at
> the Press Conference). The premise of Thomas' question was compelling
> and (contrary to Obama's dismissal) directly relevant to Obama's
> answers: how is it possible for Obama to pay dramatic tribute to the
> "heartbreaking" impact of that Neda video in bringing to light the
> injustices of the Iranian Government's conduct while simultaneously
> suppressing images that do the same with regard to our own
> Government's conduct?
>
> The reason Thomas' point matters so much is potently highlighted by a
> new poll from /The Washington Post//ABC News released today
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_062209.html?sid=ST2009062304056> --
> not only the responses, but even more so, the question itself *(/click
> to enlarge image/)*:
>
> <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SkIN8s-_saI/AAAAAAAAB8o/IfOUn4CieS8/s1600-h/torture.png>
>
> Half of the American citizenry is now explicitly pro-torture (and the
> question even specified that the torture would be used not against
> Terrorists, but "terrorist *suspects*"). Just think about what that
> says about how coarsened and barbaric our populace is and what types
> of abuses that entrenched mentality is certain to spawn in the future,
> particularly in the event of another terrorist attack. But even more
> meaningful is the question itself -- it's now normal and standard for
> pollsters to include among the various questions about garden-variety
> political controversies (health care, tax and spending policies, clean
> energy approaches) a question about whether one *believes the U.S.
> Government should torture people (are you for or against government
> torture?)* That's how normalized torture has become, how completely
> eroded the taboo is in the United States.
>
> It would be one thing for the Obama administration to argue that there
> is no value in releasing torture photos specifically, and in
> investigating and imposing accountability for past abuses generally,
> if there were consensus among Americans that torture is wrong,
> barbaric and -- as Ronald Reagan put it
> <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/01/shifts/> (hypocritically
> <http://www.democracynow.org/2005/2/18/promoting_the_ambassador_of_torture_bush> but
> still emphatically) -- "an abhorrent practice" justifiable by "*no
> exceptional circumstances whatsoever*." But we have the opposite of
> that consensus: we have an ongoing debate over torture that is fluid,
> vibrant and far from settled, with half the population embracing the
> twisted and morally depraved pro-torture position. For that
> reason, to suppress evidence of what our torture actually looks like
> and the brutality it entails -- particularly graphic evidence -- is to
> make it easier for that pro-torture position to thrive, just as it
> would have been easier for the Iranian Government to slaughter
> protesters with impunity if they had succeeded in suppressing the
> images of what they were doing (it was this same dynamic that led
> the Israeli Army to defy its own Supreme Court and forcibly block
> reporters and photographers from entering Gaza
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/middleeast/07media.html> and
> which caused the embedded American press to suppress images of the
> massive civilian deaths
> <http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/truths-consequences-by-digby-since.html>which
> their protectors, the U.S. military, was causing in Iraq).
>
> Americans are able to perceive torture clinically and in the abstract
> when they're able to endorse it without seeing its effects. They're
> able to delude themselves that the extreme abuses at Abu Ghraib were
> unauthorized aberrations -- rather than the inevitable by-products of
> the policies they support -- because the photos showing that those
> abuses were systematically applied at American detention facilities
> around the world are being suppressed. It's almost certainly true
> that few pro-torture Americans are aware that the policies they
> support -- and that were approved at the highest levels of the U.S.
> government -- have led to numerous detainee deaths, because
> investigations into such matters are being blocked; court proceedings
> impeded; and media discussions confined almost exclusively to
> questions about "water in nostrils." If Americans want to endorse
> government torture, they should not be allowed to avert their gaze
> from what they're causing and be spared the facts and details of what
> is done.
>
> * * * * *
>
> On a related note, the critique I wrote
> <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/22/npr/index.html> of
> the NPR Ombudsman's defense of their decision not to use the word
> "torture" has been discussed
> <http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/calling-it-torture.html> in
> numerous places
> <http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/examining-runes-by-digby-greenwald-has.html>.
> There has also been an outburst of angry (though highly substantive
> and civil) criticisms from NPR listeners in the comment section of her
> column
> <http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/harsh_interrogation_techniques.html>.
> As a result, we're in the process of inviting the Ombudsman, Alicia
> Shepard, to appear with me on /Salon Radio/ to discuss her rationale.
> Ostensibly, the Ombudsman is not meant to be a spokesperson for NPR
> but a voice of NPR listeners. I would hope, then, that she'd be
> willing to engage and discuss the reaction which her column
> triggered (at the very least in her column, though even better, in an
> interactive discussion). I will post updates of any responses we
> receive to the invitation extended to her.
>
> _*UPDATE*_: The media
> <http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html?showall>-manufactured
> <http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/sluggahjells/2009/06/cbs-mark-knoller-does-senseles.php?ref=reccafe> (and,
> as always, right-wing-fueled
> <http://www.memeorandum.com/090623/p69#a090623p69>) pseudo-controversy
> over Obama's "pre-coordinated" selection of /Huffington Post/'s Pitney
> to ask a question is revealingly inane for many obvious
> reasons: Pitney's question was one of the most adversarial Obama was
> asked, and the establishment media reaction clearly stems from
> resentment over their perceived status being undermined by allowing
> /The Huffington Post/ and, more to the point, an actual Iranian
> (rather than a self-anointed reporter-spokesperson for Iranians) to
> ask the President a question.
>
> But equally revealing is their self-glorifying and delusional belief
> that only establishment media reporters are sufficiently Serious to be
> entitled to ask the President questions -- even as they fill Press
> Conferences with petty, vapid questions and otherwise endlessly reveal
> themselves to be substance-free and frivolous. Along those lines,
> /The Washington Post/ claimed
> <http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-purge-of-froomkin-.html>that
> "budgetary constraints" played a role in the firing of actually
> serious journalist Dan Froomkin, yet /The Post/ spends money to
> produce and promote things like the below-posted video
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwyEbuWeso> from "reporters" Dana
> Milbank and Chris Cillizza that has to be seen to be believed. Be
> forewarned: many will consider the video too petty to bother posting
> and virtually everyone will find it painfully irritating to watch.
> I agree with those assessments, but there is still something about it
> -- the oozing smugness, the view of politics as a juvenile game, the
> desperation to be above it all and too sophisticated to care, the
> total lack of self-awareness in failing to realize how embarrassingly
> unfunny it is -- that makes it a /tour de force/ in illustrating what
> and who so much of the Washington media really are:
>
> _*UPDATE II*_: We were told by NPR that the Ombudsman is out of the
> office this week and her office will get back to us by Monday with a
> response. Additionally, someone from the Ombudsman's office also just
> left the following note in the still-growing comment section to her
> column
> <http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/comments/harsh_interrogation_techniques.html>:
>
> Dear Listeners;
>
> Ms. Shepard is out of the office this week. I work closely with
> her and have been keeping up with all of your comments. Rest
> assured that when she returns she will respond to you.
>
> In the meantime, I wanted to let you know that there is someone on
> the other end reading and receiving your phone calls and emails.
>
> Best,
>
> Anna Tauzin
>
> Office of the Ombudsman
>
> The feedback and pressure are obviously having some effect. I hope it
> continues; I would look forward to the opportunity to discuss
> Shepard's column with her in an interview.
>
> _*UPDATE III*_: Bridging Update I and Update II: the /Post/'s Dana
> Milbank was, completely unsurprisingly, one of the leaders in
> objecting to the /Huffington Post//Pitney question
> <http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018747.php>. He's
> probably best advised to stick to /Post/-funded vaudeville videos.
> /The Nation/'s Ari Melber has an excellent analysis
> <http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/445637> of the petulant,
> self-absorbed objections as part of this empty little scandal of the
> day. This empty chatter is the sort of thing with which they
> endlessly occupy themselves -- all while condescendingly scorning
> Helen Thomas' real questions and acting as though questions from /The
> Huffington Post /are a major threat to their protocols of journalistic
> Seriousness.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090624/91b392ad/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list