Author: jimstaro

Do You Voo Doo? Keep the Music in New Orleans — Listen to WWOZ

When we think of New Orleans, we all think of its rich musical heritage. In the midst of the widespread devastation of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans’ legendary public radio station, WWOZ, managed to get back on the air within days from nearby Baton Rouge. A skeleton crew of three people who had themselves lost their homes provided news, reconnecting loved ones who’d been separated from each other, and of course, playing the music that made New Orleans famous – Louis Armstrong, Buckwheat Zydeco, Little Queenie and Lead Belly. WWOZ program director David Freedman said of his station, “Our job is to try to be sure that we don’t lose this spirit that sets New Orleans apart.”

You can help keep the music flowing, and all you have to do to get started is to lend us your ears. This weekend, “Oz” (as the locals call it) is broadcasting live their annual Voo Doo Music Festival from Memphis, Tennessee. You can tune in Free Here

The Voo Doo Music Festival is a huge annual event, featuring some of New Orleans’ best and most eclectic musicians. Check out WWOZ online and listen live. Tune in to hear the Rebirth Brass Band, Teresa Anderson, and James Andrews among many others. If you like what you hear, your contribution can keep Oz on the air. And if you’d like to keep in touch to find out about WWOZ’s broadcasting and their rebuilding progress, sign up for their email list!

So pull up a chair, turn up your computer speakers, and join Care2 at the Voo Doo Festival this weekend – let’s keep the sounds of The Big Easy flowing!

We speak with Scott Ritter, the chief United Nations
weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 about
his new book: “Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of
the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and
Overthrow Saddam Hussein.” It details how the CIA
manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments
to achieve the foreign policy agenda of the United
States in the Middle East. [includes partial
transcript]

Here’s another interview with Scott Ritter on NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show

11:00 Scott Ritter: “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books)
A former UN weapons inspector talks about looking for WMDs in Iraq. He also explains how much of the intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq was discredited by work he and fellow inspectors conducted in the 1990s.

In a major article in The New York Times this weekend,
reporter Judith Miller admitted she was wrong when she
wrote several of the key articles that claimed Iraq
had an extensive weapons of mass destruction program
ahead of the 2003 invasion. Miller wrote, “W.M.D. — I
got it totally wrong. The analysts, the experts and
the journalists who covered them — we were all
wrong.” Today we are joined by someone who was not
wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq –
Scott Ritter. He was the United Nations” top weapons
inspector in Iraq at UNSCOM between 1991 and 1998.
Before working at the UN he served as an officer in
the US marines and as a ballistic missile adviser to
General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war.
Scott Ritter has just published a new book titled
“Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the
Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and
Overthrow Saddam Hussein.” The book details how the
CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN
departments to achieve the foreign policy agenda of
the United States in the Middle East.
Scott Ritter, was the United Nations’ top weapons
inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. Before
working for the UN he served as an officer in the US
marines and as a ballistic missile adviser to General
Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war. He is author of a
new book, just out, titled “Iraq Confidential: The
Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to
Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However,
donations help us provide closed captioning for the
deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank
you for your generous contribution.
Donate – $25, $50, $100, more…
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!.
SCOTT RITTER: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, what
do you think is the greatest misunderstanding of the
American people right now about what has happened in
Iraq?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, first of all, the reason that
we’re there. They think that this was an accident,
that this was a noble cause, that people like the
president, like Bill Clinton before him, like their
respective administrations, journalists like Judith
Miller just honestly got it wrong. And I don’t think –
you know, here we are today in Iraq and it’s a
disaster. I don’t think anybody’s going to debate that
statement. Some people say though, `We’re working
towards a continuation of this noble objective. We got
rid of Saddam Hussein. That’s a good thing. And now
we’re going to try to build on that good.’ I’m not
going to debate whether or not getting rid of Saddam
Hussein is a good thing or not. But, you know, if you
embrace the notion that the ends justify the means,
that’s about as un-American a notion as you can
possibly get into. We’re talking about solving a
problem. We have yet to define the problem. The
problem isn’t just what’s happening in Iraq but it’s
the whole process that took place in the United States
leading up to the war, this dishonest process of
deliberately deceiving the American public. And it’s
not just George W. Bush. For eight years of the
Clinton administration, that administration said the
same things. The C.I.A. knew, since 1992, that
significant aspects of the Iraqi weapons programs had
been completely eliminated, but this was never about
disarmament
AMY GOODMAN: How did they know this?
SCOTT RITTER: They knew it, (a) because of their own
access to intelligence information and (b) because of
the work of the weapons inspectors. In October of
1992, I personally confronted the C.I.A. on the
reality that we had accounted for all of Iraq’s
ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an
Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the
Iraqi biological weapons program and had acknowledged
that all of the weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A.
knew this. But, see, the policy wasn’t disarmament.
The policy was regime change. Disarmament was only
useful in so far as it facilitated regime change.
That’s what people need to understand, that this was
not about getting rid of weapons that threatened
international peace and security. This has been about,
since 1991, solving a domestic political
embarrassment. That is the continued survival of
Saddam Hussein, a man who in March 1990 was labeled as
a true friend of the American people and then in
October 1990 in a dramatic flip-flop was called the
Middle East equivalent of Adolph Hitler.
JUAN GONZALES: You were involved for quite a long time
with UNSCOM. At what point did you, as you were
working for the United Nations, reach the conclusion
that regime change really was the intent of the
program that – well, the United States intent behind
the program that you were involved with?
SCOTT RITTER: It wasn’t a matter of reaching a
conclusion. When I joined in September of 1991, that
was already the stated policy of the United States
government. I outlined this in the book. The fact that
in April, 1991, the United States helps draft and then
votes in favor of a Chapter 7 resolution 687 that
creates the weapons inspections, call upon Iraq to
disarm and in Paragraph 14 says if Iraq complies,
economic sanctions will be lifted. This is the law. A
few months later, the president, George Herbert Walker
Bush and the Secretary of State say economic sanctions
will never be lifted against Iraq, even if they comply
with their obligation to disarm, until which time
Saddam Hussein is removed from power. It’s the stated
policy of the United States government. What we
weren’t quite aware of is just to what extreme they
would go in undermining the credibility and integrity
of the United Nations inspection process to achieve
this objective.
AMY GOODMAN: Something that has been repeated over and
over again is that Saddam Hussein kicked out the U.N.
weapons inspectors. Can you tell us what happened?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, there are several periods of time,
but the most dramatic is the December 1998 period
right before Bill Clinton got on national TV, talked
about the threat of W.M.D. and said he is launching an
air campaign, 72 hours of bombardment called Operation
Desert Fox. No, Saddam did not kick the inspectors
out. Actually, what was happening at that point in
time is that the Iraqi government was complying with
every single requirement set forth by the Security
Counsel and the inspectors. They were cooperating with
the inspectors, giving the inspectors access in
accordance to something called the `modalities of
sensitive site inspections.’
Public perception is that the Iraqis were
confrontational and blocking the work of the
inspectors. In 98% of the inspections, the Iraqis did
everything we asked them to because it dealt with
disarmament. However when we got into issues of
sensitivity, such as coming close to presidential
security installations, Iraqis raised a flag and said,
“Time out. We got a C.I.A. out there that’s trying to
kill our president and we’re not very happy about
giving you access to the most sensitive installations
and the most sensitive personalities in Iraq.” So we
had these modalities, where we agreed that if we came
to a site and the Iraqis called it `sensitive,’ we go
in with four people.
In 1998, the inspection team went to a site. It was
the Baath Party headquarters, like going to Republican
Party headquarters or Democratic Party headquarters.
The Iraqis said, “You can’t come in – you can come in.
Come on in.” The inspectors said, “The modalities no
longer apply.” The Iraqis said, “If you don’t agree to
the modalities, we can’t support letting you in,” and
the Iraqis wouldn’t allow the inspections to take
place.
Bill Clinton said, “This proves the Iraqis are not
cooperating,” and he ordered the inspectors out. But
you know the United States government ordered the
inspectors to withdraw from the modalities without
conferring with the Security Council. It took Iraqis
by surprise. Iraqis were saying, “We’re playing by the
rules, why aren’t you? If you’re not going play by the
rules, then it’s a game that we don’t want to
participate in.” Bill Clinton ordered the inspectors
out. Saddam didn’t kick them out.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Your point that this kind of deception
occurred under both Democrats and Republicans would at
least suggest that what’s happened in Iraq is not just
a question of a bunch – of a cabal of zealots in the
White House right now that are conducting this – that
are hijacking policy but that there are deeper
interests involved in the United States and the kind
of policy that we’ve had in Iraq. You get into some of
that in the book. Could you talk about that a little
bit?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, I don’t want to sound – I’m not
somebody who’s into conspiracy theories, and I’m not
somebody who’s out there saying this is about global
oil. The tragedy of Iraq is that it’s about domestic
American politics. This is a president, George Herbert
Walker Bush, who in 1990, traps himself rhetorically
by linking Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. Once you
do that, once you speak of a Nuremburg-like
retribution, you can’t negotiate your way out of that
problem. Now it’s either deliver Saddam Hussein’s head
on a platter or you failed. He tried to during the
Gulf War. I was part of a team that was targeting
Saddam. We didn’t succeed.
Now the C.I.A. says, “Don’t worry, Saddam will be gone
in six months. All you have to do is contain him, put
these sanctions in place and keep him bottled up and
he’ll collapse.” Six months later Saddam Hussein is
still there. His continued survival became a political
embarrassment that had to be dealt with.
This was inherited by Bill Clinton. The irony is that
Bill Clinton – and I’m very critical of Bill Clinton,
but you know, in the period between his election in
1992 and his being sworn in, his administration
reached out to the Iraqis in saying, “Look, this is a
ridiculous policy, let’s figure out how we can get
sanctions lifted and get you back into the family of
nations.” But when politicians in Congress, both
Democrat and Republican, found out about this, they
said, “You can’t do this. We have told our
constituents this man is Hitler, and we can’t
negotiate with the devil.”
We were trapped by this policy. And this cabal we
speak of, the neoconservatives, they may not have
originated this policy but they exploited eight years
of Clinton administration’s ineffective policy of
dealing with Saddam. Saddam’s survival for eight years
empowered the neoconservatives to use regime change as
a rallying cry for the Republican Party. [break]
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire
program, click here for our new online ordering or
call 1 (888) 999-3877.

Dead In New Mexico:

V.A. Traitors Get Their First Vietnam Vet Kill

October 21, 2005 By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes. [Excerpt]

WASHINGTON Veterans groups and House Democrats blasted VA plans to review all post-traumatic stress disorder claims because of irregularities in their compensation system, calling it insulting to heroes who have served their country.

“To the VA, this is simply a process seeking out voids in paperwork,” said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., at a Thursday hearing on Capitol Hill. “But to veterans, it’s a jolting realization that their day-to-day struggles are being questioned again.”

Critics called it a way for the department to save money by shirking its duty to care for disabled veterans. Quentin Kinderman, deputy director of legislative service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, called the IG report flawed and the proposed review a waste of money.

“There is very little potential to reduce the number of cases here,” he said. “And we’ve very concerned about the impact of the review and publicity on veterans, especially those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, who need the kind of counseling that the VA can provide.”

Udall said in one case, a veteran in his district committed suicide after hearing about plans for the review. Officials from New Mexico found the man, a Vietnam veteran, with information regarding the review beside his Purple Heart when he took his life.

[This new rule, designed to cut thousands off the VA rolls, demands that a Vet document the “specific incident” that caused his or her PTSD. Since most armed forces PTSD is brought on by an extended period of cumulative stress in combat, rather than a “specific incident,” that makes meeting the new requirement nearly impossible. Then, no more disability payments. This is nothing less than murder. But it’s important murder. Got to save money somewhere. The Bush Buddy war-profiteers need their billions. Can’t have Halliburton going without. What are some dead Vets compared to that? Thomas]

VA under fire for plan to review all post-traumatic stress disorder claims

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Friday, October 21, 2005

WASHINGTON — Veterans groups and House Democrats blasted VA plans to review all post-traumatic stress disorder claims because of irregularities in their compensation system, calling it insulting to heroes who have served their country.

“To the VA, this is simply a process seeking out voids in paperwork,” said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M, at a Thursday hearing on Capitol Hill. “But to veterans, it’s a jolting realization that their day-to-day struggles are being questioned again.”

In August, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced plans to review 72,000 cases where veterans had received a 100 percent disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder, after an investigation of 2,100 such cases found that more than 25 percent lacked justification for those claims.

Jon Wooditch, acting inspector general for the department, said Thursday that the goal of the comprehensive review was not to cut benefits but to find reasons behind inconsistencies in the way claims are rewarded.

For example, in Illinois, only about 2.8 percent of PTSD cases receive the 100 percent rating, and the average yearly payment for treatment is $6,961. But in New Mexico, more than 12 percent of PTSD receive that highest disability claim, and the payment average there is $12,004.

“We want to make sure everyone is receiving what they’re entitled to under the law,” he said.

But critics called it a way for the department to save money by shirking its duty to care for disabled veterans. Quentin Kinderman, deputy director of legislative service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, called the IG report flawed and the proposed review a waste of money.

“There is very little potential to reduce the number of cases here,” he said. “And we’ve very concerned about the impact of the review and publicity on veterans, especially those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, who need the kind of counseling that the VA can provide.”

Democrats echoed those concerns, and called for a halt to plans to review the cases.

Udall said in one case, a veteran in his district committed suicide after hearing about plans for the review. Officials from New Mexico found the man, a Vietnam veteran, with information regarding the review beside his Purple Heart when he took his life.

“The manner in which [VA officials] have proceeded has done more harm than good,” he said.

Cynthia Bascetta, director of income security issues at the Government Accountability Office, said the VA does need to review how it handles cases for efficiency purposes, but she told the committee the department’s proposed approach is flawed.

She said officials need to sample both completed claims cases and rejected applications to find inefficiencies and mistakes in the process, which Democrats also asked for.

Ranking member Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., also questioned the review, noting that federal law prohibits veterans benefits from being revoked unless officials can prove fraud occurred.

Wooditch said cases reviewed that lacked evidence to prove the 100 percent PTSD disability claim were likely not the result of fraud, but instead simple mistakes in paperwork or administrative review.

PTSD review is leaving many veterans stressed

By Tom Philpott, Special to Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, August 25, 2005

Ronald Nesler of Las Cruces, N.M., a Vietnam veteran rated 100 percent disabled with post-traumatic stress disorder, learned this month that his case, as decided in 1997 by the Department of Veterans Affairs, lacked documents to support the finding of service-connected PTSD.

The VA regional office in Albuquerque advised Nesler in an Aug. 11 letter that he has 60 days to provide evidence he was exposed to the stressful wartime incidents described in his claim papers years ago.

SNIP: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=30337&archive=true

Warwick – If creating a buzz is rule No. 1 in advertising, then an anonymous Warwick Valley High School sophomore has a bright future.

“You can’t be all that you can be if you’re dead. There are other ways to serve your country. There are other ways to get money for college. There are other ways to be all you can be.
THINK ABOUT IT. Before you sign your life away.”

The ad was created and paid for by a Warwick student who is a member of the Bruderhof community, a Christian-based communal order in Sugar Loaf that preaches pacifism. And since appearing last week, the ad has sparked controversy in the school district and the community and provoked lively First Amendment debates among students and teachers in the classroom.

Maggie Adams, the Warwick High nurse, who has two sons who graduated from Warwick and are serving in the Marines, said she was outraged when she first saw the ad and has written a letter to the editor of The Survey.
“I understand the right to free speech and I support that. But I don’t think it’s appropriate for a school newspaper,” Adams said. “I refuse to believe what the ad says. I refuse to believe those people who choose to join the military, like my two sons, are wasting their lives.”
Army Capt. William Bliss, in charge of recruiting at Warwick High, said the ad was misleading and the Army is exploring placing some of its own ads in The Survey.

The ad cost $50 and was part of a year-long buy totaling $450. The student was planning to create a string of different ads on various subjects for the year.
While Barbarash said administrators have yet to determine if the controversial ad would run again, Zimmerman said the student has been told by school officials the district was pulling the ad for future issues.
Zimmerman said the Bruderhof community supports veterans, the military and the government, but also democratic dissent.
“The ad wasn’t meant to create hate or anger,” Zimmerman said. “It was to get people to think and discuss and it seems to be doing just that.”

Sun, 2 Oct 2005 08:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Jim is winging his way back to the front as I write this. He had to go to Atlanta to fly out. Yesterday, right before he left, he found out that a guy from his comapny had been killed. It appears to be non-combat related–apparently a jeep flipped over somewhere. This did not put our minds at ease as we sent him off. It was a young guy with young kids, and he was Jim’s squad leader in Iraq, so Jim knew him fairly well. It’s coming closer to home.
Amy

Hey

I sent an e-mail to Mr. Thames, current editor of the CO, wondering why the death of SSgt. James Stoddard hadn’t made it to the war obits page of the paper. Also, according to a Knight Ridder report, another soldier had been killed in Afghanistan about last Friday, but nothing has been said about this soldier, either (He didn’t belong to Jim’s company). Jim said that two other guys from his company were wounded by gunfire while he was on leave. The CO editor said he would ask Knight Ridder why the names of the dead in Afghanistan weren’t appearing in the war obits. Along with Iraq’s invisibility, it seems like Afghanistan has disappeared. Of course, they’re all still there (again) due to the invasion of Iraq and the lack of military personnel to take their places, so maybe that’s it–no one wants to face the fact that soldiers are still dying everywhere due to the bungling of this administration. At any rate, SSgt. Stoddard was buried last Friday at Arlington. Jim’s wife went, along with a group of other FRG wives and families. I’m beginning to hate the times I live in.
Amy

From: amy keith
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:00 AM
To: rthames@charlotteobserver.com
Subject: war obits
Dear Mr. Thames:
I’m grateful that the CO has been running the names and pictures of the dead in Iraq on a page adjacent to the rest of the obituaries. However, the names of the casualties from Afghanistan seem to be overlooked on this page. My son, Sergeant Jim Keith, Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 504th PIR, 82nd Airborne Division, is in Afghanistan, after serving previously in both Iraq and Afghanistan with the same company, Recently he was home on leave for two weeks. On the day he was to fly back to Afghanistan he learned, therough his Family Readiness Group, that a member of his comapny, Staff Sergeant James Stoddard, had been killed. This past weekend, another soldier was killed in Afghanistan, according to the CO, yet I didn’t see any mention of Sgt. Stoddard, or the name of the other soldier anywhere in the paper.Realizing that the war in Iraq is foremost in everyone’s mind, the soldiers in Afghanistan are still carrying on the war against terrorism and, according to m! y son, are shelled and shot at on a routine basis. In fact, right after Jim arrived in the States for his leave, he found out that two other members of Alpha Company had been wounded. The soldiers in Afghanistan are there because of the war in Iraq. They have been there before but are redeployed due to lack of adequate military personnel. They go cave to cave and put their lives on the line every day, yet I failed to find any mention of SSgt. Stoddard, who was buried at Arlington last Friday. Last April the CO ran a column I wrote regarding the departure of the 2nd Battalion back to Afghanistan. I received a number of e-mails expressing good wishes to these troops. These soldiers deserve recognition for what they do. Many, including my son, have left behind families for yet another year in the desert, searching for al Qaida with numbers that have been depleted by our drawn-out occupation of Iraq, yet their deaths seem to go unnoticed by the Observer, They deserve better.
Sincerely,
Amy Keith
Charlotte, NC 28262

From: Thames, Rick
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:53 AM
To: ‘amy keith’
Cc: Felsing, Alix
Subject: RE: war obits
Dear Amy,
Thank you very much for your email. Until now, I assumed that we did publish obituaries of soldiers who died in Afghanistan. We certainly want to do so. I will check with our national editor to find out why deaths you know about have not appeared.
Rick Thames

From: “Felsing, Alix” <AFelsing@charlotteobserver.com>
To: Amy
CC: “Thames, Rick” <RThames@charlotteobserver.com>, “Batten, Taylor” <TBatten@charlotteobserver.com>
Subject: RE: war obits
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:35:53 -0400
Dear Amy,
Rick passed your message on to me because my team handles the national and international coverage, including obituaries and the tributes to soldiers. We get the tributes to fallen soldiers from the Associated Press, and they’ve been very popular with readers.
You ask a good question about why they don’t include the U.S. military troops who die in Afghanistan.
The AP tells us they focus their efforts on those who die in the war in Iraq (and therefore Kuwait).
They’re not including military deaths in Afghanistan because they view events there as less like a war and more like the many other U.S. military actions around the world.
Please let us know if you have any other questions about our coverage.
Alix Felsing National editor The Charlotte Observer afelsing@charlotteobserver.com

After I wrote my reply back, Mr. Felsing wrote me this letter. I’m sending my reply back in a separate message.

Amy

From: amy keith
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:20 PM
To: Felsing, Alix
Subject: RE: war obits
I don’t have any questions, but I do have a comment. I think that line of reasoning is one of the most inane, illogical and insensitive comments I’ve ever encountered from a group of journalists. I’m sure that Sergeant Stoddard’s wife and three children will be glad to hear that comment. What you’re saying is that their lives don’t matter as much as the “war”, which by the way, has never been declared. The men and women in Afghhanistan are under fire every day, and comb the hills and caves along the Pakastani border. This line of reasoning is insane. I’m going to pass along your message to Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families for Peace, not to mention Congressman Watt, and Senators Burr and Dole, as well as Lt. Gerneral Swannack, the former commander of the 82nd. What you’re implying is that Afghanistan isn’t real combat, because it hasn’t been declared a war. Again, neither has Iraq. Do you mean to! tell me that being shot at on a ! daily basis is l”less like a war” in Afghanistan than Iraq? Shame on all of you for swallowing the Bush propaganda.
Amy Keith

“Felsing, Alix” <AFelsing@charlotteobserver.com> wrote:
Dear Amy,
Please re-read my message. I gave you the Associated Press’s reasoning, because they provide the tributes to us. It isn’t my position, nor is it The Charlotte Observer’s position. We cover the events in Afghanistan as a war in every other way. We are going to call the Associated Press and ask them again to rethink their position. The reality is, however, that we depend on them to provide the information. As a regional newspaper, we don’t have the resources to report these tributes ourselves.
Alix Felsing National editor The Charlotte Observer afelsing@charlotteobserver.com

From: amy keith
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:58 PM
To: Felsing, Alix
Subject: RE: war obits
I bet, if you really wanted to, you could be in contact with Ft. Bragg or any of the other bases that have soldiers deployed. These guys deserve it. They go out to Pakastani border to rescue fallen comrades, and can’t even chase them across the border. Yet, according to Senator Dole in this morning’s CO, Pakistan is “such a valuable ally” in the war on terror. Do you not think that you have the responsibility to let the world know what is really going on? There are young Americans dying and getting torn to shreds in Afghanistan, and you can’t even make the effort to find out who and when? Has journalism come to the point of reliance on conveniences such as the AP without any thought to truth or compassion? So far the editorial stance of the CO has been in favor, from the beginning, of the occupation of Iraq, but it’s too much trouble to report the deaths of soldiers who are fighting on the other front for the third ! time because of the lack of numbers of the military to support this bungled war.
Amy Keith

From: “Felsing, Alix” <AFelsing@charlotteobserver.com>
To: “‘amy keith'”
CC: “Felsing, Alix” <AFelsing@charlotteobserver.com>, “Batten, Taylor” <TBatten@charlotteobserver.com>
Subject: RE: war obits
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:30:25 -0400
Amy,
Your questions indicate I need to clarify a few things.
First, we get the mini-obituaries that we call tributes from the AP. They only do deaths in Iraq, and they move a batch of them approximately once a month.
We run them as we have space, and usually run out before the next batch arrives, so sometimes you’ll see a gap of a few days or weeks. (More on tributes below.)
Second, you asked about telling readers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan and when. We can get names, ranks, hometowns and usually the units of soldiers who die in either country, via the Department of Defense, which sends out e-mails with that basic info. The DOD does that only after families have been notified.
We try to run that basic info when the soldier is from a Carolinas base, as soon as we get it. We try to have a staff reporter write about that soldier when they are actually from the Carolinas; again, as soon as we can get information.
So, to answer one of your questions, we are trying to tell our readers when such deaths have local interest. We’re also trying to do it in a timely manner. And we’re trying to be consistent about how we do it.
To answer another of your questions, yes, journalism relies on wire services such as the Associated Press and similar organizations. And it’s far more than a convenience.
It’s a business arrangement that allows news organizations to get stories from around the country and around the world that they might otherwise not be able to get.
It’s not financially feasible for every news organization to have a staffer in every country, but AP comes much closer to being able to do that.
Now, back to AP’s policy for a moment. The AP called me back since you and I exchanged e-mails earlier today, and they have been discussing ways to start doing similar tributes to those killed in Afghanistan.
We will publish them when we get them, which I hope will be soon. The person I talked to did not give me a time frame. In fact, she was greatly concerned that someone there had told us they don’t think Afghanistan is a war.
AP fully grasps the gravity of the situation, she said, and whoever we originally talked to has the wrong understanding of why Afghanistan deaths aren’t represented in the tributes.
She said the AP originally came up with the idea of doing the tributes to fallen soldiers when the war in Iraq started and they realized the death toll was going to be far higher than what we had seen so far in Afghanistan.
I hope you will follow up your earlier complaints about AP’s policy with this updated information, since we had received inaccurate information about their policy.
Alix Felsing National editor The Charlotte Observer afelsing@charlotteobserver.com

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: “amy keith”
Subject: RE: war obits
To: “Felsing, Alix” <AFelsing@charlotteobserver.com>
I think this answer is covering a lot of ground , so to speak. It seems more like a smoke screen, honest. The deaths in Iraq are more than “local interest” stories, as the death in Afghanistan should be, I’m sorry–this is not s good enough answer for Sergeant Stoddard, and the rest of the soldiers. It needs to remedied, yes, and soon, but it should never have been an issue. These guys have been fighting the real war on terror since day one.
And, please, you don’t need to “clarify”–I know about the AP and “business arrangements”. It’s a shame journalism has come down to “business arrangements” and the deaths of soldiers have been reduced to “business arrangements” and “local interest”. I get it–deaths of young Americans are worth reporting as long as it’s good business practice. Come to think of it, maybe it did need some clarification.I don’t think I would have believed it if someone hadn’t said it. But, then, this George Bush’s America, and even journalism hasn’t escaped its effects. It’st great to know the AP understands the “gravity” of the situation. This whole exchange feels really absurd–it would seem like newspapers would feel an obligation to publish obits about soldiers without anyone prodding or complaining, especially one whose editorial policy so openly and unwaveringly supported the Iraqi war. Maybe, since it’s such a financial burden and onerous duty for the CO, it’s better to leave the obits to the Army Times after all. Honest. It’s time for us who give a damn to close ranks.
Amy Keith