Baltimore IMC :
Baltimore IMC

Commentary :: Media

CHERYL SEAL REPORTS: PM: 3/26: Dubai TV says 103 US Soldiers Killed, Basra Uprising Denied, Russians Say US Will Plant 'Evidence'

Out latest hike through through the Bush War disinformation labyrinth:

Next two Updates: 3/27 AM and 3/27 PM are at: and

Update: Filed 6:00 p.m. 3/26

Man, I feel like I ought to break out the hip boots, the Bush/media bullshit is piling up so high and so fast....But here we go..squishing and squelching through the latest pile up, starting with a followup on this morning's "press briefing" with Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks:

LYING ON RECORD: This afternoon, the Pentagon absolutely swore that officials are NOT withholding U.S. casualty statistics (as Brooks stated they were this am). So now the Bush administration is officially on record with a categorical lie. That may prove very useful in impeachment proceedings, which, according to a link sent to me this afternoon, are now being explored by John Conyers (D). The movement is apparently snowballing rapidly: FAX number is: (313) 226-2085.

RE: US CASUALTY COUNT Latest independent estimates: According to TV reporters with a Dubai station, the latest US casualty count, just in the fighting around An Nasariya is about 103. Here's the story from a Chinese news service which has proven itself, over the months, to be a reliable international newslog.


PENTAGON LIE: Uprising in Basra underway or at least imminent

TRUTH: Al-Jazeera - with eyewitnesses in Basra say there IS no evidence of an uprising, and that there is not likely to be, given the fact that the last time they rose up against Saddam at the US's exhortation back in 1991, Bush I hung them out to dry, leaving them to the mercy of Saddam's troops.


LIE: Brooks displayed a video image of a tower-like structure that he said was an archaeological site Saddam was using as a shield for nearby military assets. But this was a lie,and he KNEW it.

TRUTH: Archaeological expert McQuire Gibson revealed this afternoon that this site was a monument to the war dead of the Iraq-Iran war and barely a few decades old. The monument is near an historical area, but not IN it. The Pentagon knows this, because Gibson, at the Pentagon's request, supplied the military with a complete list of archaeological sites. If the Pentagon will lie baldfacedly about something like this, complete with photographic "aids," what WON'T they lie about? And we are supposed show support for our troops by NOT questioning these people? Some support that is! I for one refuse to join in this "patriotic" push to shove our courageous guys and gals over a cliff of someone else's making.

LIE: That was NOT our bomb that killed over 30 civilians in an Baghdad marketplace.

TRUTH: The hit occurred just 300 feet from a targeted site. In addition, the British Secretary of Defense repeatedly has refused to officially deny that coalition forces were responsible. See the story in the Guardian:,12956,922404,00.html

DUBIOUS ASSERTION (We'll be conservative and not callit a lie just yet): Evidence of WMD absolutely will be found and the "evidence" is mounting.

COUNTER ASSERTION: Russians now have officially predicted that the US will plant evidence to justify this unpopular war.

Here's an excerpt from a story in the well-respected "Times of India.":

"Russia on Wednesday expressed concern that Washington could fabricate evidence of Iraq allegedly hiding its weapons of mass destruction in an effort to justify the US-led attack on Baghdad. Speaking before the Federation Council (Russian Upper House) on Wednesday Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov cautioned Washington and London that Moscow is not going to trust their claims of finding evidence of WMD in Iraq. "Even if the American-British forces report that they have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the final assessment of their origin can be given only by international inspectors," Ivanov said. "No other assessments (WMD evidence) can lead to a final conclusion, this is the understanding within the framework of the UN Security Council," Ivanov said." - UK Guardian." For the complete story, see:


If you wonder why you keep seeing the same one or two families of fallen soldiers on the networks, giving the same "patriotic" "Washington knows best" responses over their loss, wonder no more. They are the only ones whose comments have been "Pentagon approved." A few days back, a woman I know whose husband is in Iraq told me she'd heard thru the wives grapevine that family members of the wounded or killed were being called by the Pentagon and told what they could and could not say to the press. Now on NPR this afternoon, another woman from halfway across the country from my friend, said the same thing. She said people wanted to speak out, but after being called, were afraid to say anything. This explains the media repetition, the sudden overnight recanting by Baltimore father Waters-Bey of his angry comments toward Bush after he'd learned of his son's death. On NPR, only about 1 in 4 of the family members of servicemen I heard calling in to express their thoughts were mindlessly pro-war. Most had evolved far beyond that primitive thinking and know damn well that pro-troops and pro-war are NOT the same thing, anymore than being pro-your child and pro-his/her teachers, regardless of how abusive, must be synonymous. These people are angry, grieving, aching for the plight of their friends and family members in Bush Hell in Iraq. They do not deserve to be there. Worse yet, they DO NOT NEED TO BE.


Tonight on CBS news, a propaganda piece showed food being passed out to Iraqis. The men dove in to grab their portion, while the women and children "stood guard" (to use the CBS phrase). The spin on this? The men were greedy animals - it "proves that here, everything is survival of the fittest." It proves no such damn thing. Arab men are fiercely protective of their women - to the point that we western women would be suffocated and outraged. But the fact is, no way would women be expected to dive in and fight for a food ration while men were present. That would be a disgrace. The ignorant interpretation of such behavior being applied to Iraqis reminds me of the ignorant interpretations applied to Native Americans in this country not so long ago ("savages"). Or calling Blacks "lazy and shiftless" when they rebelled against their white masters in the only way they could. Surely Americans have come further than this!!


Well, what could you expect from someone whose closest weekly brush with real life is, apparently, a bad hair day? When Bush's Pentagon PR point woman Victoria Clarke (who looks, sounds, and acts like someone hired through Central Casting: "send over someone attractive, chic, but depth knowledge of history and military a plus but not required!") was confronted by the observation that guerilla tactics, such as blowing up one's own bridges or disquising oneself in enemy uniforms, pretending to surrender, etc probably happened in every war. Clarke sniffed. "Not any war I've ever heard of." Which means she's never heard of Vietnam, World War II, Korea, World War I, the Civil War....etc., etc. Guess she was too busy sipping cocktails in Kalorama with Dick Cheney and her other cronies. Not even your new, butched up look ( "war chic"?) can convince me of your line, Vickie dahling.


Here's an interesting new report that indicates that Bush's plan for post-war Iraq overall are as shakey as his plans for humanitarian aid. "Post-war Iraq: Are We Ready?," a new report by The Center for Strategic and International Studies says the Bush administration has failed to adequately plan for the future of post-war Iraq. For one thing, Bush plans to use regular combat troops for "stabilization" duties -- essentially policing -- yet these troops have no training in that kind of work. The US has not discussed Iraq's external debt, which amounts to an estimated $383 billion, and has not said what will happen to compensation claims linked to the Gulf War of 1991 and worth $172 billion, it added. Bush's claims that oil revenue could be used to pay any significant portion of reconstruction costs in the coming years are seriously questioned, while former allies of the United States are reluctant to contribute to reconstruction as long as the United States intends to maintain political control over Iraq. See the story in Forbes:


This afternoon, at a State Department Budget hearing, Colin Powell indicated that once the U.S. has trashed Iraq (not his phrasing, exactly), Bush & Co. want to pull out and leave the clean-up and long-term headaches to European nations...(yeah, right, like the French will be so excited about that!). Why? So U.S. troops can move on and "hone their skills" (his words) in a more active capacity... like invading North Korea or Iran? This was on C-SPAN.


This site made manifest by dadaIMC software