Presidential candidates strike a pose on war

July 12, 2007 | 2008 campaign,Defense industry,Ethics,Fundraising,Iraq

Before the ink was dry on the $120 billion war-funding package passed without withdrawal deadlines by the U.S. Senate and House on May 24, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., returned her focus to her campaign with this: “If President Bush does not end the war, when I am president, I will.” It has become a mantra (slogan, if you will), repeated on her blog.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said in April, “So I make a solemn pledge to you, as president, we will be out of Iraq.”

As senator? Not so much.

Last I heard, Congress still had some power. Why are they willing to wait until 2009 (or beyond) to end a war the majority of Americans wanted to end with the influx of Democrats they voted into office last year?

In the Democratic debate on June 3, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., mentioned getting 2,500 mine-resistant V-shaped armored vehicles into Iraq by August to “save lives,” and he has pushed this idea several times since. It seemed oddly specific, so I looked it up. Those vehicles are called MRAPs, or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. They will not be available by August. They will not be available until 2009, at a cost of $900,000 each. The U.S. Army plans to buy 2,500 MRAPs over the next three years, at a cost of $2.25 billion. The U.S. Marine Corps plans to replace its 3,700 Humvees in Iraq, which will cost $3.7 billion. That’s a sweet $6-billion deal for some defense company. Do Biden and his colleagues want to prolong this war another two years so they can fulfill contracts?

According to The Center for Responsive Politics, the defense industry gave more than $48 million to elected officials since 2002. Two of the companies that make MRAPs are BAE Systems and General Dynamics, two of the top defense contributors. GD has given $4.5 million to elected officials, and BAE has given $2 million since 2002. Let’s look at some of the 2008 presidential candidates.

• Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., took $246,410 from the defense industry in 2006, including $20,000 from BAE.
• Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., took $96,800 in 2006.
• Clinton took $72,200 in 2006, including $8,000 from BAE.
• Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., took $53,500 in 2004, including $1,000 each from BAE and GD.
• Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., took $2,000 in 2006 and $18,000 in 2004.
• Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., took $1,000 in 2006 and $2,000 in 2004.

As for the Democrats who recently refused to end the war, the 25 senators who voted for the war funding in May have taken money from defense companies, while only 12 did not. The 66 representatives who voted for the funding taken money from defense companies, while only 20 did not.

Whose interests do they really serve?

Covering the war, part 2

Death,Iraq,Journalism,Military

My newspaper published an article about a local soldier’s funeral (sans flag-draped coffin) on the front page … of the metro section.

What was on the front front page?

1) An article about the cost of copper.

2) The presidential race.

3) A Washington Post article about security.

4) A Los Angeles Times article about Lady Bird Johnson.

5) Teasers to the life and sports sections.

Thirty U.S. troops have died so far this month, yet this is the only article written in-house. The newspaper ran an Associated Press article about a sailor from the other side of the state, and numbers of deaths may or may not be mentioned in wire stories picked up about “incidents” in Iraq.

Covering the war

July 10, 2007 | Death,Ethics,Iraq,Journalism,Military

I don’t mean to diminish the South Carolina tragedy in any way, but why did this photograph bother me? It ran across the front page of my hometown newspaper — and probably countless others — on June 23, 2007. Was it an attempt to ease a collective guilty conscience for refusing to run photographs of flag-draped coffins every day that U.S. troops return home that way?

For the record, 12 troops died June 23, 2007, and 111 troops died during June. Fifteen were from California. Florida lost two soldiers on June 21, which would have been more “local” than a fire in South Carolina, but my newspaper didn’t write about either of them.

Remember this controversy? Maytag Aircraft, a military contractor and subsidy of Mercury Air Group, Inc., fired cargo worker Tami Silicio for “violating U.S. government and company regulations” for submitting a photograph of flag-draped coffins of U.S. troops to The Seattle Times, which published it April 27, 2004. Her husband, David Landry, who also worked for the contractor, was fired too. (More coverage is here.)

The Pentagon had banned the media from taking photographs of caskets being returned to the United States since 1991, and this incident did nothing to ease that ban. Even so, Silicio was not “the media,” and the only Maytag Aircraft regulations that seem to cover this issue fall under the vague blanket of “and other company regulations.”

Russ Kick of The Memory Hole filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act and posted photographs not published in newspapers.

Some politicians and editors say that publishing photographs of military coffins would be seen as an antiwar statement by the media. If I were to follow that logic, would not publishing them be considered a prowar statement?