The Daily Grasshopper

I'd like to start off today by saying "welcome" to the latest batch of new subscribers to the "Daily Grasshopper." Back on January 3rd, when I wrote my first essay to a small group of friends and family in the Boston area ("They're Lying To Us Again" - http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/010303intro.html), I asked people to consider tuning in to alternative news sources like ZNet for a different perspective on the daily news. Since then, I've been pointing people to the Z site on occasion, in the hopes that a broader sense of what others are saying about America (or, more accurately, our government) will enable us, the citizens, to act appropriately.

So I was pleasantly surprised yesterday to find my most recent essay, "Doing The Numbers," up on their home page (http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm). Especially since it's right there next to one by Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame), and another by Norman Solomon, one of the finest media watchdogs alive today. Thanks to my friend and fellow activist and writer Cynthia Peters for forwarding "Doing The Numbers" to her friends at ZNet. As a result, the "Grasshopper" has dramatically expanded its global reach in the last 24 hours - here's a shout out to the United Arab Emirates, Greece, Australia, and Accokeek (it's in Maryland). Plus a whole slew of new folks from right here in the U.S.A.

And while it's gratifying to have my writing published alongside essays by greats like Jones and Solomon, the real payoff comes from the messages that people send back to me, like this one I got the other day: "Your voice - and the few like yours - is what is keeping me sane. Thanks."

And now for something completely different...

You may have missed this little item in yesterday's Boston Globe. It was buried way back in the D Section (Living/Arts), on page 5. The title of the article, by the Globe's media writer Mark Jurkowitz, was "Sy Hersh casts critical eye on Bush administration." You can read the article here:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/072/living/Sy_Hersh_casts_critical_eye_on_Bush_administration+.shtml

Seymour "Sy" Hersh, whose name you may remember from my essay about possible U.S. war crimes at the end of the first Iraq war (http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/020103oreilly.html), was at Harvard University on Tuesday night to receive a journalism award. According to Jurkowitz's article, Alex Jones, who is the director of the university's Shorenstein Center, called Hersh "the man who, for my money, is the best investigative reporter ever."

Jurkowitz recounts some of the recent stories (since Sept. 11, 2001) that have added to Hersh's reputation:

"Since then, Hersh - who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1970 for exposing the My Lai massacre in Vietnam - has reemerged as a force in journalism, writing about the CIA's failure to deter the terrorist attacks, the corruption of our Saudi Arabian allies, US contingency plans to disarm Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and a US Delta Force raid in Afghanistan gone awry."

You'll notice he makes no mention of Hersh's investigation into stories of U.S. soldiers firing indiscriminately on retreating Iraqis in the first Gulf war. Hersh raised very serious questions about General Barry McCaffrey's conduct at the end of that conflict. His reporting caused a huge controversy at the time - General McCaffrey was the nation's "drug czar" under Clinton when it broke into the news. Maybe Jurkowitz just forgot. Then again, with 200,000 U.S. troops back in that very same desert, maybe it's not the kind of story you want to be talking about right now. Even in the Arts section. Here's how Jurkowitz deals with it: "As have a number of Hersh's stories, the Afghanistan piece generated controversy and angry denials."

One part of the story that has me truly concerned, though:

"This has been a week of open hostility between the reporter and the administration. In the March 17 New Yorker, Hersh wrote an eye-catching story accusing Richard Perle - a key proponent of Bush's policy on Iraq - of improperly blending his roles as a public advocate and a private businessman. When asked last Sunday by CNN's Wolf Blitzer to respond to allegations of 'conflict of interest,' Perle flatly declared: 'Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.'"

(My biggest pet peeve is when people feel the need to add "frankly," or, worse, "quite frankly," to the end of a sentence. Does that mean that whenever they don't include that little qualifier, they're not being frank? It's amazing how many politicians use it - kind of makes you wonder.)

You can read Perle's discussion with Blitzer here (excerpted from CNN's transcript):

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/03/10_perle.html

And Hersh's New Yorker article is here (you ought to read it):

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030317fa_fact

If you don't know exactly who Richard Perle is, you should take a minute to read up on him - he's the Chair of the Defense Policy Board. I've mentioned him now on a few occasions, mostly focusing on his involvement with PNAC ("Plans for the Next American Conquests"). Here's his profile at the American Enterprise Institute:

http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.49/scholar.asp

And his profile at the International Speakers Bureau, Benador Associates, whose experts-for-hire are "nationally and internationally recognized on issues of the Middle East and national security, among others."

http://www.benadorassociates.com/perle.php

Perle's smear of Hersh as "a terrorist" is alarming for a couple of reasons. First of all, as someone who has opted for the pen over the sword, I can tell you that if high-ranking members of the Bush administration start calling reporters "terrorists," we are entering very dangerous territory. If you haven't studied up on the USA PATRIOT Act, and the broad powers it has given to the Executive as he wages his "War on Terror," then you may not understand my concern. If, on the other hand, you do know about this law, then you see exactly where I'm coming from. And where this could all wind up, if people don't start paying better attention.

Second of all, here's a guy who's about to play a starring role in unloading the "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign on tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, in complete violation of international law, and he's calling someone else a "terrorist"? Forgive me for insisting that people - even high-ranking government officials - should have some respect for the actual meaning of words. Here's how the official U.S. government definition of terrorism reads:

"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

The one thing you'll notice is that the official definition (U.S. State Department) confines terrorist activities to "subnational groups" - meaning states can't commit terrorism, even if their "premeditated, politically motivated violence" is directed at "noncombatant targets" with the intention of "influencing an audience." Pretty much what the "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign has been advertised as.

You'll also notice that even the most liberal interpretation of the definition cannot be stretched to make it apply to someone who makes his or her living with today's equivalent of a typewriter. But in the U.S., the political climate has gotten so polarized, and our very language has become so debased, that Richard Perle thinks he can call Sy Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist" and make it stick. Then again, as President Bush himself said in the days following September 11th, "Either you are with us, or with the terrorists." http://www.inq7.net/brk/2001/sep/21/brkafp_8-1.htm

I don't think I fit the official definition of a terrorist. But I'm damn sure not with President Bush. I'd rather keep company with people like Terry Jones, quite frankly.

PK
http://www.dailygrasshopper.com