"From: William O. Beeman

Sent: Wed 8/8/2007 3:22 PM

To: letters@nytimes.com

Subject: U.S. Says Bomb Suppled by Iran Kills Troops in Iraq

To the Editor:

Re: "U.S. Says Bomb Suppled by Iran Kills Troops in Iraq" by Michael R. Gordon, August 8, 2007

It is increasingly suspicious that every time the United States has begun a diplomatic initiative with Iran--the latest on August 6, some United States military official in Iraq comes forward to accuse Iran of supplying weapons to attack U.S. troops. Perhaps it is coincidence, but the reporter rendering these accusations for the public seems always to be Michael R. Gordon. These military reports and the Times reportage seem timed to undermine these diplomatic talks. Following the historic May 28 talks between Iran and the United States in Baghdad, the Iranian government called for a second round of talks. As negotiations for this second round were underway General Kevin Bergner provided a briefing on precisely the issue of the IED's covered in the August 8 article by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon's last reportage of General Kevin J. Bergner's account of these Iranian attacks ("U.S. Ties Iran to Deadly Iraq Attack" July 2, 2007) was a textbook case in hype. Mr. Gordon significantly enhanced General Bergner's already specious and exaggerated statements to make the Iranian government appear even more culpable than the evidence in the press conference would warrant. Although Mr. Gordon's August 8 reporting on Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno's account of essentially the same phenomenon does acknowledge that critics of the Bush administration assert that there is no proof of Iranian state involvement in supplying the IED devices, the article is riddled with innuendo accusatory of Iran, such as identifying "Iranian-backed cells" as if they existed as verified definable entities, and they had been proved to have ties to Iran. Mr. Gordon's piece appears on page 1 of the Times above the fold (as did his July 2 piece) thus increasing the hype factor. The Times should save its partisanship for the editorial pages, and not conscience it in its reporting.

Sincerely,

William O. Beeman Professor and Chair Department of Anthropology University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455

President, Middle East Section, American Anthropological Association"

(emphasis added)

-------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it's time for more people to start publically taking Gordon and his employer to task for this type of shoddy and partisan "journalism".

The address (above) is letters@nytimes.com.

I'm sure they'll appreciate the attention.

"The problem with total war, any conflict really, is that even though there are some mutually agreed upon rules or guidelines for legal conduct there are no referees to enforce them. They are self-imposed or enforced after the fact by the victor which is an incentive for actors to not follow the rules to begin with."

It would appear that this administration believes the same rules apply to its conduct.

Are they at war with us, the people of the United States?

I believe, although I'm not speaking for him, that Glenn's reading on the domestic spying is based upon the extremely loose requirement that the government "believe" that a subject is overseas. Furthermore, that the "government" in this case is none other than that sterling example of integrity, Alberto Hisownself, only strengthens Glenn's argument.

Add to that, the fact that the only oversight of Alberto's activities in this arena will be performed by Alberto Hisownself and you'll better understand where he's coming from.

"doveriai, no proveriai"

I'm glad you're still here and free to enrichen us all.

How did Alan like his trip to Iraq to meet with Petraeus? I was under the impression that when corresponding with you, Col. Boylan emphasized that Patraeus prefered to do these interviews in person and in Iraq.

It's only a matter of time before the tribal chiefs in Anbar tire of killing "Al Qaeda" fighters and decide their efforts would be more substantially rewarded by expanding their influence over more peaceful Iraqis, especially since we've now armed them to the teeth.

"Success" in Anbar is thus both temporary and illusionary.

......and now Bush is sneaking in talk of re-instating a draft?

Anything will work as a diversion, I suppose.

It's only a matter of time before the tribal chiefs in Anbar tire of killing "Al Qaeda" fighters and decide their efforts would be more substantially rewarded by expanding their influence over more peaceful Iraqis, especially since we've now armed them to the teeth.

"Success" in Anbar is thus both temporary and illusionary.

......and now Bush is sneaking in talk of re-instating a draft?

Anything will work as a diversion, I suppose.

"At least Kirk can fly an F-15."

What the hell would an F-15 driver know about land warfare, or anti-insurgency tactics? We've already seen what a clusterfuck an ex-F102 driver can make, why should we make the same mistake again by relying on another flyboy?

Q: How would you decide when it was in the national interest to use US force?

BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interests. And that means:

Whether our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened.

Whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

Oh Jebbie, Jebbie, Jebbie, you so don't understand!

I so sorry.

I promise to do better.

Really!