Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This Associated Press story is based on the outcome of the election that took place in Venezuela on December 2. The first paragraph in the story says,”President Hugo Chavez suffered a stunning defeat Monday in a referendum that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and impose a socialist system in this major U.S. oil supplier.” What does the reporter mean by using the word “stunning” and the statement “and impose a socialist system in this major US oil supplier?” The reporter never qualifies by the term socialist and or explains what Venezuela’s supply of oil to the US have to do with that country’s outcome? It is hard to answer these questions based on the article, since the next pieces of information in the article are the vote percentages, a quote from an anti-Chavez voter, and a few comments from Chavez himself.

The rest of the story does provide readers with some aspects of the reforms that were in the referendum, although the referendum text is actually 31 pages long. The original version of the AP story had more comments from pro and anti-Chavez supporters, made reference to Chavez’s relationship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, and that “Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.” There was no mention in this AP story that there was a leaked US government memo on plans for a political coup in Venezuela.

Story:

President Hugo Chavez suffered a stunning defeat Monday in a referendum that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and impose a socialist system in this major U.S. oil supplier.

Voters rejected the sweeping measures Sunday by a vote of 51% to 49%, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council. She said that with 88% of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.

Opposition supporters shouted with joy as Lucena announced the results on national television early Monday, their first victory against Chavez after nine years of electoral defeats.

Some broke down in tears. Others began chanting: “And now he’s going away!”

“This was a photo finish,” Chavez told reporters at the presidential palace, adding that he has “heard the voice of the people and will always continue to hear it.”

Chavez said his respect for the outcome should vindicate his standing as a democratic leader.

“From this moment on, let’s be calm,” he declared. “There is no dictatorship here.”

Critics — including Roman Catholic leaders, press freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders — feared the constitutional reforms would have granted Chavez unchecked power and threatened basic rights.

“Don’t feel sad,” Chavez urged supporters, who gave him a re-election victory with 63% of the vote exactly a year ago. He blamed the loss by “microscopic margins” on low turnout among his supporters. Voter participation was 56% overall.

The defeated reforms would have created new forms of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map, lengthened presidential terms from six to seven years and let Chavez seek re-election indefinitely. Now, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012.

Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Along with several hundred other dejected Chavez supporters, Nelly Hernandez, a 37-year-old street vendor, cried as she wandered outside the presidential palace amid broken beer bottles while government employees dismantled a stage that had been prepared for a possible victory.

“It’s difficult to accept this, but Chavez has not abandoned us, he’ll still be there for us,” she said between sobs.

Chavez urged calm and restraint. “To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them,” he said.

“I ask all of you to go home, know how to handle your victory,” the 53-year-old president said. “You won it. I wouldn’t have wanted that Pyrrhic victory.”

Tensions had surged in recent weeks as university students led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups.

Chavez made it clear, though, that he has no intention of abandoning his petrodollar-fueled attempt to turn Venezuela into a socialist state. He has progressively steamrolled the opposition, with his allies now controlling the National Assembly and most other elected posts.

And he suggested he hasn’t given up on his vision of permanently leaving his mark. Echoing words he spoke when as an army officer he was captured leading a failed 1992 coup, he said: “For now, we couldn’t.”

At opposition headquarters in an affluent east Caracas district, jubilant Chavez foes sang the national anthem.

“We’ve put a stop to the socialist authoritarian project,” said one leader, Leopoldo Lopez. “Now we’re opening the way to democracy.”

Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.

Chavez, who was briefly ousted in a failed 2002 coup, said of his opponents: “I hope they forget about shortcuts, leaps into the dark — violence.”

A close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Chavez is seen by many supporters as a champion of the poor and has redistributed more oil wealth than any other leader in memory.

All was reported calm during Sunday’s voting but 45 people were detained, most for committing ballot-related crimes like “destroying electoral materials,” said Gen. Jesus Gonzalez, chief of a military command overseeing security.

Lucena called the vote “the calmest we’ve had in the last 10 years.”

Analysis:

This article from the Washington Post is based on a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The version of the story that appeared in the Grand Rapids Press emphasizes that of those polled are “finding the public more positive about the military effort in Iraq than at any point in 14 months as a surge of optimism follows the rapid decline in violence.” What the article failed to mention was that on the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal the same poll stated: “By 54%-41%, more Americans favor bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible rather than keeping troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized. The balance of opinion on this measure has not changed significantly all year.”

The other issues that are emphasized in this article are the shift in the public’s view as to the importance of the war in Iraq. The GR Press version of the story states “While Bush and Congress are still fighting over the war, the debate has moved to the back burner as Iran, spending, health care, the economy and other issues generate more political energy.” However, the Pew poll said: “The survey finds that the war in Iraq continues to be viewed as the most important problem facing the nation, though it is not nearly as dominant a concern as it was early this year.” Why did the reporter say that Iraq is taking a back burner, when the poll says just the opposite? The only other aspect in the article is a short reference to what the upcoming Presidential Election will play in regards to the War in Iraq. No one is quoted in this article, but the original version does have comments from the anti-war group Win Without War, a former Congressman, the pro-war group Freedom’s Watch, an academic from Duke University and someone from the Center for American Progress. After reading the original version of this Washington Post story how different was your understanding of the issue compared to the GR Press version?

Story:

The debate at home over the Iraq war has shifted significantly in the two months since Gen. David H. Petraeus testified to Congress and President Bush ordered the first troop withdrawals, with more Americans now concluding that the situation on the ground is improving.

A new poll released yesterday underscored the changing political environment, finding the public more positive about the military effort in Iraq than at any point in 14 months as a surge of optimism follows the rapid decline in violence. Yet Bush remains as unpopular as ever in the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and the public remains just as committed to bringing U.S. troops home.

The evolving public attitudes reflect, or perhaps explain, a turn in Washington as well. While Bush and Congress are still fighting over the war, the debate has moved to the back burner as Iran, spending, health care, the economy and other issues generate more political energy. The focus of the presidential campaign, especially on the Democratic side, has broadened as well. Even antiwar groups that once denied that security has gotten better have recalibrated their arguments to focus on the failed efforts to reach political conciliation among Iraqi factions or the risk of war with Iran.

The shift has strategists in both parties reevaluating their assumptions about how the final year of the Bush presidency and the election to succeed him will play out. If current trends continue, Iraq may still be a defining issue but perhaps not the only one, as it once seemed, according to partisan strategists and independent analysts, particularly if the economy heads south as some economists fear.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

“What this reinforces is that Iraq is not as much of a pressure point as it was through much of the year — which is not to say that it goes away as an issue,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew center. “If Iraq were to either go away or have a much lower profile in the coming election, it would certainly be good for the Republicans and could be a transforming factor. But it’s real important to get ‘could be’ in that sentence.”

The Pew poll highlighted the dichotomy in public views. Nearly half of Americans, or 48 percent, believe that the military effort in Iraq is going well, up from 30 percent in February, and 43 percent agree that U.S. forces are making progress in defeating insurgents, also up from 30 percent. The last time Americans felt as positively about the military effort was in September 2006.

Still, the proportion of Americans who want to bring troops home has remained essentially unchanged at 54 percent, as has the share who think the effort in Iraq will ultimately fail, at 46 percent. Bush’s job approval rating has actually slipped by three points to 30 percent. (The survey was based on a sample of 1,399 adults interviewed from Nov. 20 to 26 and has a three percentage point margin of sampling error.)

Antiwar groups dismissed the importance of the poll. “The bottom line is the bottom line, and that is that people want out,” said former congressman Tom Andrews (D-Maine), national director of a coalition called Win Without War. “That hasn’t changed and that isn’t going to change.”

Former congressman Vin Weber (R-Minn.), a war supporter and top adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, said it may be too late to change the public’s mind when it comes to the fundamental issue. “The central question is not: Are we winning or losing?” he said. “The central question is: Was it worth it? And that was resolved a long time ago.”

And yet, at least to an extent, the Washington debate has moved on. Congress made only a faint effort to pass legislation mandating a troop withdrawal as part of a $50 billion war spending bill this month and then quickly shelved it. Not counting the Turkish conflict with Kurdish rebels, Bush at his most recent news conference last month was not asked about the Iraq war until the 10th question. Not a single Iraq question came up at four of White House press secretary Dana Perino’s seven full-fledged briefings this month.

Similarly, the Democratic presidential candidates who seemed to talk about little other than Iraq early in the year have spent more time quarreling about other issues lately. At their Oct. 30 debate in Philadelphia, the word “Iraq” was used 44 times, but the word “Iran” came up 69 times. Even Andrews’s antiwar group plans to launch a new campaign, including television and print ads, focused on Iran, not Iraq. The message to Democrats, he said, will be: “If you can’t act to stop the war in Iraq, can you a least act to stop a war in Iran?”

War supporters are adjusting strategy as well. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who co-founded a group called Freedom’s Watch to press Republicans to stick with Bush’s war policy, sees an opening to expand the message. “The campaign we launched in August was really to make sure Republicans didn’t defect,” he said. “Now it’s fair to say, because facts have changed on the ground, that we have the opportunity to bring back on board independents who had been lost.”

While the Iraq debate has faded for the moment, it promises to resume as funding needs become an issue. In pushing their case to deny Bush further money for the war, opponents have dropped the argument that violence really has not fallen and point instead to the fact that the troop “surge” earlier this year has not yielded the political accord it was supposed to.

“The White House tends to focus on the military situation and ignore the political situation,” said P.J. Crowley, a Clinton White House national security aide now at the Center for American Progress. “Remember, the surge is a tactic, and while a discrete tactic may be working better than expected, the overall strategic position has not fundamentally changed.”
Even so, it has changed some political calculations. If the violence remains down, it may enable Petraeus when he returns to Washington in March to recommend pulling out more than the 30,000 troops now scheduled to leave by July. If so, the fall general election could be played out against the backdrop of troops coming home.

“Now everybody says they’re for pulling out troops,” said Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University scholar who has studied wartime public opinion. “The question is just how fast. That fuzzes the issue. If violence is still down, if the cost of the mission goes down, that makes it easier to stay there even if there’s no progress.”

Analysis:

This Associated Press article which appeared in the Grand Rapids Press is based upon the conference in Annapolis, Maryland between the US, Israel and Palestine. What role does the headline give to President Bush? In the first paragraph is states that Bush is stepping into the role of peacemaker for this conference. What does the title peacemaker suggest and what evidence does the article provide other than these heads of state met that would suggest that Bush will actually be a peacemaker? The shortened version of the original AP story only sources Bush and provides a summary of the dinner meeting with leaders from Israel and Palestine.

The original version of the AP story does quote both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but does what they say clarify what is at issue in this conference? There is one sentence in the original AP story that provides some context the the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, “American and Israeli officials are resisting Palestinian efforts to include language about “ending the occupation that started in 1967,” a reference to disputed Jewish settlements in the West Bank.” For Palestinian’s this is the fundamental issue that gets to the heart of the Israeli occupation. If US news would provide adequate historical context to this issue, people might read a story about this summit in an entirely different way. Professor Stephen Zunes, in a recent article, provides some context to the so-called Israeli/Palestinian dispute when he says, “ever since direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks began in the early 1990s, U.S. policy has been based on the assumption that both sides need to work out a solution among themselves and both sides need to accept territorial compromise. As reasonable as that may seem on the surface, it ignores the fact that, even if one assumes that both Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights to peace, freedom and security, there is a grossly unequal balance of power between the occupied Palestinians and the occupying Israelis. It also avoids acknowledging the fact that the Palestinians, through the Oslo agreement, have recognized the state of Israel on a full 78% of Palestine and what Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is asking for is simply the remaining 22% of Palestine that was seized by Israel in the 1967 war and is recognized by the international community as being under belligerent occupation.”

Story:

President Bush stepped cautiously into the most direct Mideast peacemaking of his administration on Monday, meeting separately with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to explore whether peace is possible.

“Difficult compromises” will be required but the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are committed to making them, he said.

A day ahead of a major Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md., Bush said he was optimistic. The gathering is to launch the first direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians of Bush’s nearly seven years in office, and has attracted Arab and other outside backing.

Israeli and Palestinian leaders have already said they want to conclude a bargain within the 14 months that Bush has left in office. The two sides were unable to frame a blueprint for the talks before they came to the United States, and negotiations over the text were expected to continue into Tuesday.

At an evening dinner at the State Department for members of some 50 delegations invited to the talks, Bush toasted the effort and told the guests: “We’ve come together this week because we share a common goal: two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Achieving this goal requires difficult compromises, and the Israelis and Palestinians have elected leaders committed to making them.”

Bush earlier emerged from an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and told him: “I’m looking forward to continuing our serious dialogue with you and the president of the Palestinian Authority to see whether or not peace is possible. I’m optimistic. I know that you’re optimistic.”

Next, he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who stressed the need to address issues of Palestinian statehood, sticking points that have doomed previous peace efforts.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

“We have a great deal of hope that this conference will produce permanent status negotiations, expanded negotiations, over all permanent status issues that would lead to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people,” he said. “This is a great initiative and we need his (Bush’s) continuing effort to achieve this objective.”

At the dinner, host Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, sat between Olmert and Abbas. Bush stopped by briefly to share a toast with the participants, and clinked glasses with Abbas and Olmert. They raised their iced tea; for Bush, it was water. No alcohol was served out of respect for Muslim tradition.

Earlier, Olmert said international support — from Bush and also, presumably, from the Arab nations that will attend the conference — could make this effort succeed where others failed.

“This time, it’s different because we are going to have a lot of participation in what I hope will launch a serious process negotiation between us and the Palestinians,” Olmert said. He was referring to the talks expected to begin in earnest after this week’s U.S.-hosted meetings.

“We and the Palestinians will sit together in Jerusalem and work out something that will be very good,” Olmert said. As to timing, he added later: “We definitely will have to sit down very soon.”

The agreement that was shaping up, as Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo described it, is a starting point for negotiations and sketches only vague bargaining terms. The big questions that have doomed previous peace efforts would come later.

The document was to include a formal announcement of the renewal of peace talks, Abed Rabbo said. It will set a target of concluding negotiations before Bush leaves office in January 2009. And it commits the two sides to resolving the key issues that divide them.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia said after an afternoon meeting with Rice, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and others that details of the document had not been made final. “Our efforts are still going on to reach this document.”

A member of the Palestinian delegation, speaking on condition on anonymity because talks are still going on, said three main obstacles have emerged:

All sides have agreed that two states should be established, but the Palestinians have objected to referring to Israel as a “Jewish state.” The Palestinians and their Arab backers are concerned that a specific reference to a Jewish state would prejudice the right of Palestinians who claim a right to return to land they once owned inside Israel.

American and Israeli officials are resisting Palestinian efforts to include language about “ending the occupation that started in 1967,” a reference to disputed Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The West Bank would form the bulk of an eventual Palestinian state and the two sides must decide which settlements would remain a part of Israel.

The Palestinians want the document to set a one-year timetable for reaching a resolution. The Israelis do not want this, and the Americans are open to the idea.

Bush’s tempered outlook suggested he has his own misgivings about the success of the talks, although administration spokesmen said the United States will remain closely involved after the talks close.

The Palestinian question underlies numerous other conflicts and grievances in the Middle East, and has scattered hundreds of thousands of Palestinians across several Arab states.

The Palestinians are unlikely to strike any bargain that their Arab backers and neighbors do not support, so the Annapolis conference is meant to make Arabs what one administration official called “ground-floor investors” in the new round of talks.

Analysis:

This article from the Grand Rapids Press primarily focuses area meteorologists and their predictions for winter snowfall. Aside from this, the article attempts to connect snowfall patterns with global warming. Does the Press make a convincing case that there is a connection? Do they provide any scientific sources to make this connection?

Beyond the snowfall predictions, the Press also reports on the positions of five West Michigan meteorologists with regard to global warming. Of the four, three believe that global warming is “real.” They differ over whether or not global warming will have an effect this winter, with most arguing that its effect is more long-term and will not have an effect on this winter. Despite this, the most space is given to WOOD TV 8 meteorologist Craig James, who according to the Press, “remains skeptical about global warming.”

The Press gives James’ space to make the claim that “the science is anything but settled whether carbon dioxide is to blame.” However, the Press never investigates this claim despite the fact that four other meteorologists and significant portions of the scientific community disagree with James’ opinion. Would readers have benefited from an investigation of this claim?

The Press reporter also apparently asked James about Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth film, to which James says “There were many, many errors in his movie. There are some gross oversimplifications.” Again, the Press failed to investigate James’ claim that there were errors in the movie. Since it was released, there has been a concentrated attack on Gore’s film, including ads aired on television by the oil industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute. In addition, an online ad that was designed to be “amateur” was in reality produced by a lobbying and public relations firm that has represented Exxon. In a lawsuit brought to court by global warming skeptics in England, a judge ruled that there were nine “errors” in An Inconvenient Truth–most of which centered on interpretations of data–although the film was “broadly accurate” in its claim that global warming is a fact and is happening because of human action. Would readers have been better served by an investigation of James’ claim that An Inconvenient truth had “many, many errors?”

Moreover, it is also worth noting that on his blog at WOODTV.COM, Craig James has referenced numerous entities connected to the oil industry. The industry has funded a number of groups to create “confusion” over the science pertaining to global warming. Would it have been beneficial if James’ previous statements–including his membership in ICECAP (a website and organization promoting “skepticism” over global warming)–were disclosed in the Press article? Does his relationship to these entities shape his opinion?

Story:

by Ted Roelofs

Global warming?

Most of our local weather experts say, yes, it’s real. Glaciers are melting. Greenland is greening.

But don’t expect agreement on whether that means more or less snow this winter, as they serve up their annual forecasts for The Press. Predictions are about as consistent as the Detroit Lions.

WZZM-TV meteorologist George Lessens looks north to the polar ice cap, noting that sea ice “melted to unprecedented levels” over the summer. He thinks this winter “might be influenced by global warming.”

For Lessens, it adds up to snowfall of 65 inches, about 7 inches below average, and warmer-than-normal temperatures.

National Weather Service meteorologist Bill Marino peers at the same set of observations and comes to a different conclusion.

Marino agrees that global warming is real. He says evidence is mounting that humans are causing it by dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

But Marino expects 80 inches of snow, mostly based on a pattern of cooling Pacific Ocean waters known as La Nina. Weather, says Marino, is far too complex to squeeze into a tidy little prediction box.

Global warming hardly means every winter in Michigan will be warm.

“It’s more complicated than anyone can figure out,” he said.

“They use supercomputers, and they still don’t have enough information to figure it all correctly.”

WOOD-TV meteorologist Craig James remains skeptical about global warming.

“We are certainly in a warmer period than we were in the 1960s and 1970s,” James said. “But the science is anything but settled whether carbon dioxide is to blame.”

As for former Vice President Al Gore — who made global warming a household word with his film “An Inconvenient Truth” — James is not exactly a fan.

“There were many, many errors in his movie. There are some gross oversimplifications.”

That said, James foresees a warm, with the same 65 inches of snow as Lessens predicted.

At WWMT-TV, meteorologist Keith Thompson offers no cold comfort for winter enthusiasts.

He predicts just 61 inches of snow, 11 inches below normal.

“Not a good year for the ski hills and snowmobilers,” he says.

As for global warming, Thompson says: “I believe it is real.”

But Thompson says his forecast has little to do with that, adding that effects of global warming “are marked over several years or even decades, not one or two years.”

Analysis:

This article originally appeared in the Washington Post and is framed as a story about what motivates Iraqis to join the insurgency. The first paragraph provides three options or motivations for joining including “to kill Americans,” “to form a Muslim caliphate,” and economic desperation. Are there any other possible reasons such as resisting the US Occupation? The second paragraph cites an Iraqi in the insurgency who is being detained in an Iraqi military base. He says he joined the insurgency because he was unemployed, but the reporter doesn’t provide any context on the issue of unemployment in Iraq, nor it’s causes.

The rest of the story cites a US military commander who offers his reasons for Iraqis joining the insurgency and his claims about their limited financial resources. He even states “I tell a lot of my soldiers: A good way to prepare for operations in Iraq is to watch the sixth season of ‘The Sopranos. You’re seeing a lot of Mafioso kind of activity.” When sources make such a claim, is it important for reporters to verify such a claim?

About two-thirds of the original story was omitted from the GR Press version of the story. In the original story there are more deatils on why Iraqis join the insurgency and how it is financed. One issue that is not address in the story is what are the motives for people to join the US military. Are there any financial incentives or motives for people to join? Have you ever read a story that frames corruption with private military contractors as acting Mafia-like?

Story:

Abu Nawall, a captured al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, said he didn’t join the Sunni insurgent group here to kill Americans or to form a Muslim caliphate. He signed up for the cash.

“I was out of work and needed the money,” said Abu Nawall, the nom de guerre of an unemployed metal worker who was paid as much as $1,300 a month as an insurgent. He spoke in a phone interview from an Iraqi military base where he is being detained. “How else could I support my family?”

U.S. military commanders say that insurgents across the country are increasingly motivated more by money than ideology and that a growing number of insurgent cells, struggling to pay recruits, are turning to gangster-style racketeering operations.

U.S. military officials have responded by launching a major campaign to disrupt al-Qaeda in Iraq’s financial networks and spread propaganda that portrays its leaders as greedy thugs, an effort the officials describe as a key factor in their recent success beating down the insurgency.

“I tell a lot of my soldiers: A good way to prepare for operations in Iraq is to watch the sixth season of ‘The Sopranos,’ ” said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. forces in central Iraq, referring to the hit HBO series about the mob. “You’re seeing a lot of Mafioso kind of activity.”

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

In Mosul, a northern city of 2 million people that straddles the Tigris River, U.S. officials are also spending money to buoy the Iraqi economy — including handing out microgrants sometimes as small as several hundred dollars — to reduce the soaring unemployment that can turn young Iraqi men into insurgents-for-hire.

Col. Stephen Twitty, commander of U.S. forces in Mosul and surrounding Nineveh province, said the dismantling of insurgent financing networks is the primary reason that violent attacks here have dropped from about 18 a day last year to about eight a day now.

“We’re starting to hear a lot of chatter about the insurgents running out of money,” said Twitty, of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division. “They are not able to get money to pay people for operations.”

In a 30-minute interview, Abu Nawall described his work managing the $6 million or so annual budget of the Mosul branch of the Islamic State of Iraq, an insurgent umbrella group believed to have been formed by al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqi military, which is still interrogating Abu Nawall, agreed to allow a Washington Post reporter to meet him in person after repeated requests for an interview. The interview was canceled at the last moment, but the military later allowed The Post to speak with Abu Nawall by phone as he sat in an Iraqi general’s office.

Abu Nawall said he joined the group over the summer because his metalworking business had dried up. The 28-year-old said he was responsible for running the bureaucracy and arranging payments to the 500 or so fighters for the group in the city, who he said try to carry out as many as 30 attacks a day.

“Most of our money comes from payments we receive from places like Syria and from kidnappings,” Abu Nawall said, adding that ransoms can reach $50,000 a person. But he denied U.S. claims that attacks in the city had dropped or that the group’s funding had stopped. “We still have money,” he said.

Much of Abu Nawall’s account could not be independently verified, though he said he was speaking freely and without coercion by his detainers. His description of the insurgency’s viability was in some cases significantly more upbeat than the one offered by Iraqi and U.S. officials.

But Abu Nawall and his captors agreed that Iraqis were joining the insurgency out of economic necessity. “Of course we hate the Americans and want them gone immediately,” Abu Nawall said. “But the reason I and many others joined the Islamic State of Iraq is to support our families.”

Abu Nawall described himself as a middle-management accountant for the insurgency, but he acknowledged killing four Iraqi police officers because he viewed them as collaborators with the U.S. military. He said he was not primarily involved in ordering violent attacks.

Brig. Gen. Moutaa Habeeb Jassim, commander of the 2nd Division of the Iraqi army, which has been holding Abu Nawall since his capture earlier this fall, said he suspected the detainee was responsible for far more deaths and had been involved with the insurgency since last year. “Abu Nawall is not always telling the truth,” Habeeb said.

The U.S. military has launched a propaganda effort to describe Abu Nawall and other insurgents as greedy in order to undermine support for al-Qaeda in Iraq and create infighting among insurgent groups.

In a memo to the provincial police chief, U.S. military officials provided him with a list of “talking points” that they asked him to repeat on local television. “We want these talking points to raise suspicion that higher level [al-Qaeda in Iraq] leaders are greedy and placing personal financial gain over the mission,” the memo said.

The memo also said that Abu Nawall admitted that the group’s leader in northern Iraq, known as Mohammed al Nada or Abu Basha’ir, had told fighters to attack civilians “to keep them in fear” of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The memo said he also confessed that the group “gets a lot of money through extortion and kidnapping of Iraqi citizens.”

“He stated that most of this money stays with the higher level leaders while the fighters on the street get paid only a small amount,” the memo said. Two leaders, identified as Mohammed Bazouna and Fuad, “are growing rich through these activities without paying their fighters salaries and giving them the resources to conduct effective attacks.”

In the interview, however, Abu Nawall denied making the statements described in the memo. The document also referred to Abu Nawall as the group’s emir, or leader, in Mosul, even though U.S. and Iraqi officials said in interviews that he was the deputy emir in the city.

American officials said that Abu Nawall is just the latest Sunni financier detained as part of a campaign this year to disrupt the group’s funding networks. Twitty, the brigade commander in Mosul, said their effort started in April when they realized raids on low-level figures weren’t as effective as they had hoped.

“We’re killing a bunch of insurgents and capturing a bunch of insurgents, but we weren’t really cutting the head of the snake,” he said. “We said: How can we better conduct operations to cut the head off the snake? So we looked at finances. And we went after them hard.”

The racketeering operations extended to nearly every type of business in the city, including a Pepsi plant, cement manufacturers and a cellphone company, which paid the insurgents $200,000 a month, Twitty said.

One of the biggest sources of income was a real estate scam, in which insurgents stole 26 ledgers that contained the deeds to at least $88 million worth of property and then resold them, according to Lt. Col. Eric Welsh, commander of the battalion responsible for Mosul.

Mosul is the central hub in Iraq for wiring money to the insurgency from Syria and other countries, Welsh said, with three of the largest banks in the country that transfer money operating branches in the city. He said U.S. forces have shut down several such money exchanges in Mosul.

U.S. forces detained a major al-Qaeda in Iraq financier Sept. 25 with a passport that showed he had been to Syria 30 times, according to a military summary of his capture.
Another man, captured by the Iraqi army Sept. 3, is thought to be the No. 1 al-Qaeda in Iraq financier in Nineveh province, responsible for negotiating the release of kidnapping victims, according to another military summary. It said he was found with checks totaling 775 million dinars, or $600,000.

Welsh said he thinks all the money that flowed into the al-Qaeda in Iraq network corrupted some of its leaders and drove them further away from the modest lifestyle that their religious ideology promotes.

“If what they are truly migrating into is money, money, money,” he said, “then that means they are disenfranchised from what al-Qaeda stands for. What you end up getting is al-Qaeda being ineffective and diluted and being almost something else.”

The challenge for U.S. troops is how to break the racketeering operations controlled by al-Qaeda in Iraq without destroying the legitimate business needed to rebuild the country. “It’s just like gardening,” Welsh said, “I could spray herbicide everywhere and easily kill all the weeds. But what’s the point if I kill all the flowers, too?”

Analysis:

This story is based upon a conflict between the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange and the The Coalition of Immokalee Workers. Once the basics of the story are mentioned, the writer frames the article from the point of view of the growers saying that the demands of the farm workers “may violate antitrust laws,” and then mentions that the writer got this information from “three independent sources close to the Exchange.” The first source cited is that of Reggie Brown, who is the President of the Growers Exchange. Brown states that they are opposed to the farm worker coalition and said that “the industry will instead continue to develop its own programs to monitor worker treatment and food safety.” The story failed to mention that the program that the Growers Exchange uses is SAFE, of which Brown himself is the Board President.

The story also cites a university professor who claims that what the Growers Exchange is doing might be a violation of antitrust laws. Nowhere in the GR Press version of this Associated Press article is a representative of the workers coalition cited, unlike the original version which cites worker coalition co-founder Lucas Benitez numerous times. Not only is the farm workers’ point of view excluded from this article, but there is no mention of the nationwide protest at Burger King restaurants on November 30. There is also no data provided in the story on what the worker accords would mean, but the story does present information on what tomato pickers currently make, although the source for these numbers is not provided. In looking at the Growers Exchange site, the wages cited in the AP article are very similar to those mentioned by the industry.

Story:

Landmark deals to boost wages for Florida tomato pickers are in danger of collapsing under pressure from Burger King and a growers group, the latter threatening $100,000 fines against any members who participate.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers fought for years to persuade fast-food giants McDonald’s Corp. and Taco Bell owner Yum Brands Inc. to pay a penny more per pound of Florida tomatoes — with their suppliers passing the money on to farm workers. The agreements were mostly symbolic, affecting only a tiny fraction of Florida tomato pickers, but they paved the way for raising wages and strengthening farm worker rights across the industry.

So the coalition next set its sights on Burger King, but the Miami-based company has joined the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange in opposing such a deal.

The growers exchange maintains the agreements may violate antitrust laws, though it has declined to offer specifics. It threatened members that accept the deal with $100,000 fines, three independent sources close to the exchange told The Associated Press.

What the growers say carries weight. Florida supplies 80 percent of the nation’s domestic fresh tomatoes between Thanksgiving and February.

Exchange spokesman Reggie Brown refused to discuss the fines but called the coalition agreements “un-American” because they allow a third party to set wages. He said the industry will instead continue to develop its own programs to monitor worker treatment and food safety.

Several antitrust experts say the association may be the one violating antitrust laws by banning its members’ participation.

“This exchange is limiting one way in which these growers can compete for the business of these major fast-food contracts,” said Stephen Ross, a Pennsylvania State University law professor. “The only antitrust violation I see is the growers’ response.”

For the backbreaking labor of picking tomatoes, Florida workers earn about 45 cents per 32-pound bucket. That can mean upward of $11 an hour for those who hustle to fill more than 200 buckets a day. But work is not guaranteed, and tomato pickers get neither health insurance nor overtime. Most field workers are immigrants, many of them here illegally.

If the McDonald’s and Yum Brands deals are adopted industrywide, worker wages would essentially double. Yum Brands says it is still committed to the coalition, yet after two successful seasons, its suppliers opted out this year. McDonald’s has yet to find any supplier who will participate but will continue to buy Florida tomatoes either way.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Undeterred, the Immokalee coalition is still targeting Burger King, organizing a 9-mile march Nov. 30 from downtown Miami to the company’s headquarters, with workers, students and community groups from around the country.

“It’s more important now than ever,” said Lucas Benitez, the coalition’s co-founder, as he recently chatted up tomato pickers, their clothes and hands stained a brownish green from dirt and pesticides.

“There’s no one company that buys the majority of tomatoes that we can just pressure to change this industry. With each agreement, we are building a house brick by brick,” Benitez said.

While wages have been stagnant for decades, so has the price of tomatoes. Tomato growers are facing tough times with competition from Mexico, stricter food and safety regulations, and concerns about immigration raids. At least two growers are not planting this year and a third says this is his last.

Tomato production may be down, but restaurant and grocery chains have to buy fresh tomatoes from the state in the winter months, the coalition says.

Under the Yum Brands agreement, the company split the bonus among all of its suppliers’ field hands. An independent accountant cut the checks, and the growers passed them out. The deal also allowed the coalition to investigate complaints about labor violations, yet it has not filed any since it signed the Yum Brands agreement in 2004.

Burger King Vice President Steve Grover says the deal sounds fishy, despite two years of negotiations with the coalition and offers from Yum Brands to go over details. Company officials have repeatedly insinuated the coalition is taking the extra money, even after Yum Brands and The Carter Center, an Atlanta human rights group that helped facilitate the deal, dismissed the allegations.

Meanwhile, the growers and Burger King recently teamed up to offer media tours of tomato fields to counter the coalition’s allegations of below poverty-level wages and abuses of some workers.

Negotiations appear to be at a standstill, although both sides said they would be willing to talk.

The question of whether the growers association has violated antitrust law is tricky.

An exemption to antitrust law exists to allow agricultural cooperatives to set prices during tough times, said Hannibal Travis, a Florida International University law professor. But he said the exemption would not apply if the cooperative is attempting to squelch legitimate forms of competition.

State and federal officials declined to comment on whether they were investigating the issue.

Grover said Burger King is worried about being held liable for the workers.

“We’re in the hamburger business, not the agriculture business,” he said. “And we can’t have several thousand migrant farmers on our payroll.”

Analysis:

This Associated Press story is based upon a meeting by the Presidents of Venezuela and Iran at the OPEC Summit. The Grand Rapids Press version of the AP story focuses on both the anti-US position of Venzuela and Iran, as well as the refusal by other OPEC member countries to adopt a proposal put forth by the two leaders. In the Press version only Chavez is cited. After reading his comments do readers have a better understanding of his country’s relationship with Iran and their stance towards the US? Do the comments from Chavez provide readers with substance or rhetoric?

The omitted part of the original Associated Press story cites Iranian President Ahmadinejad and has additional comments by Chavez that focus on his belief that the US must respect the sovereignty of Iran. The website Venezuela Analysis has a signigficantly different perspective on the meeting between Chavez and Ahmadinejad and quotes the Iranian President as saying, “We have signed some very important and constructive agreements that will increase cooperation and bilateral relations between both countries, and will allow us to strengthen our ties. We are intent on expanding our bilateral and international relations, defending the rights of exploited poor nations, and always supporting each other.” How is this comment different than those sourced in the GR Press story? The original AP story deals with the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, an issue that the US government has used to try to marginalize Iran. There is no mention in the Associated Press story about the November 15 release of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report regarding Iran. The report is generally positive towards Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, even though the Western news media fails to mention that.

Story:

Venezuela’s outspoken president joined with Iran’s leader Monday in boasting that they are “united like a single fist” in challenging American influence, saying the fall of the dollar is a sign that “the U.S. empire is coming down.”

Hugo Chavez also joked about the most serious issue the U.S. is confronting regarding Iran – nuclear weapons – during his get-together with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The visit came after a failed attempt by the firebrand duo to move OPEC away from pricing its oil in dollars.

OPEC’s weekend summit displayed the limits of their alliance – their proposal was overruled by other members, led by Saudi Arabia – but it also showed their potential for stirring up problems for the U.S. and its allies.

Making his fourth trip to Tehran in two years, Chavez has built a strong bond with Ahmadinejad that has produced a string of business agreements as well as a torrent of rhetoric presenting their two countries as an example of how smaller nations can stand up to the U.S.

“Here are two brother countries, united like a single fist,” Chavez said upon his arrival in Tehran, according to Venezuela’s state-run Bolivarian News Agency.

“God willing, with the fall of the dollar, the deviant U.S. imperialism will fall as soon as possible, too,” Chavez said after a two-hour closed meeting with Ahmadinejad, the Iranian state news agency IRNA reported.

As the dollar weakens, oil prices have soared toward $100 a barrel. Chavez said at the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that prices would more than double to $200 if the U.S. attacked Iran or Venezuela.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

“The U.S. empire is coming down,” he told Venezuelan state television, calling the European Union’s euro a better option and saying Latin American nations were also considering a common currency.

The leftist leader is a harsh critic of President Bush, while Iran’s Islamic government is in a bitter standoff with Washington over Tehran’s nuclear program. The U.S. accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a claim Tehran denies, and Iran has been hit with two rounds of U.N. sanctions for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.

Although it’s a sensitive issue for his ally, Chavez joked about acquiring his own atomic bombs, apparently seeking to poke fun at the U.S. accusation that Iran is using its nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons.

According to a Venezuelan state TV report, when a reporter asked about the aims of his visit, Chavez quipped: “As the imperialist press says, I came to look for an atomic bomb, and I’ve got it here. If anyone should cross me, I’ll fire it.”

The report didn’t say how Ahmadinejad reacted to the joke.

Chavez has strongly supported Iran’s right to have a civilian nuclear program, backing the position of Tehran that its atomic activities are intended solely for the peaceful production of electricity.

“We demand respect for the sovereignty of Iran,” Chavez told Venezuelan TV when he arrived for his hours-long visit. “Iran has a right to have nuclear energy for peaceful uses.”

Ahmadinejad backed his “dear brother” Chavez in their joint fight with the Bush administration.

“We have common viewpoints and we will stand by each other until we capture the high peaks. God is with us and victory is awaiting us,” he was quoted as saying by IRNA.

During the OPEC meeting, Iran and Venezuela proposed that the cartel begin setting its oil prices based on a basket of currencies, rather than just the dollar, and they wanted the summit to specifically express concern over the dollar’s slide in its final statement.

Analysis:

This story is based upon a Press Wire Service story that relied exclusively on comments from a US military commander in Iraq. The headline states that violence is down in Iraq, but the story provides no evidence to support that claim and there are some independent reports that contradict the Pentagon’s claim. The article does states that there were fewer roadside bombs placed by enemy combatants last month compared to June and quotes the US commander saying, “The attacks are still much higher than I would like here in the north, but they are continuing to decrease in numbers and scale of attacks.” The US commander claims that “militants have been pushed east to his area from Anbar by the so-called Awakening movement, in which local tribes have allied with the coalition against al-Qaida,” but this there is nothing other than US government Press to verify that claim.

The article then shifts to discuss updates on private military contractors and a recent shooting by an employee of Almco, which is based in Dubai. The story mentions the investigation of Blackwater and that “federal authorities have convened a grand jury to investigate the contractor shootings.” However,the article states that this is “according to sources familiar with the probe,” but never names those sources.

Story:

Despite a decline in violence in Iraq, northern Iraq has become more violent than other regions as al-Qaida and other militants move there to avoid coalition operations elsewhere, the region’s top U.S. commander said Monday.

Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling said al-Qaida cells still operate in all the key cities in the north. “What you’re seeing is the enemy shifting,” Hertling told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from outside Tikrit in northern Iraq.

Hertling said militants have been pushed east to his area from Anbar by the so-called Awakening movement, in which local tribes have allied with the coalition against al-Qaida. Others have been pushed north to his area from the Baghdad region, where this year’s U.S. troops escalation has made more operations possible.

“The attacks are still much higher than I would like here in the north, but they are continuing to decrease in numbers and scale of attacks,” he said.Hertling said 1,830 roadside bombs were placed in his region in June, compared with 900 last month.

The U.S. military says overall attacks in Iraq have fallen 55 percent since nearly 30,000 additional American troops arrived in Iraq by June, and some areas are experiencing their lowest levels of violence since the summer of 2005.

Meanwhile, a showdown appeared to loom over foreign security companies’ immunity from prosecution in Iraq as authorities arrested 43 people after guards protecting a convoy in Baghdad shot and wounded a woman Monday.

The incident was relatively minor compared with recent shootings; The worst, involving guards working for Blackwater USA, left 17 Iraqis dead in September.

The company involved in the latest incident, Almco, is based in Dubai and has contracts with the pentagon to provide some bases with essentials such as food, water, and tents, the military said.

In each incident, witnesses said the shootings were unjustified, but guards said they fired after perceiving they were under threat of attack.

In Washington, federal authorities have convened a grand jury to investigate the contractor shootings, according to sources familiar with the probe.

Analysis:

This New York Times story that ran in the Grand Rapids Press is based on recent allegations that there may be a conflict of interest with the Blackwater investigation. The story frames the issue in the headline and in the first few paragraphs as having more to do with a “family feud” and “family estrangement” than corruption. The only sources cited in the story are those of the Krongard brothers and Rep. Waxman. Do the comments from Waxman provide enough insight as to what took place at the hearing held by the Oversight Committee? At that committee hearing Rep. Waxman requested numerous documents from Mr. Krongard, but there is no mention of what was requested by the Representative.

There is a section of the original New York Times story that was omitted in the Grand Rapids Press version. The omitted text has more details on Krongard’s role in assisting Blackwater CEO Erik Prince in procuring mercenary contracts in Afghanistan. Reporter and author of a book on Blackwater, Jeremy Scahill, has even more details on Krongard’s relationship with Prince in a recent article in The Nation. The article in the GR Press also omitted information on other government insiders who have helped Blackwater and other military contractors, particularly Joseph Schmitz, whom Scahill reveals in his book was “tasked with the job of overseeing all war contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan” as the Defense Department Inspector General before joining Blackwater. While holding that job, Schmitz claims to have found no wrong doing in government contracts to war profiteers. Thus it seems that the New York Times and the Grand Rapids Press missed an opportunity to show that corruption and conflict of interest with government officials and Blackwater has been a pattern.

Story:

They were smart, scrappy brothers who rose from modest circumstances in Baltimore to become lacrosse stars at Princeton, succeed in business and land big government jobs.

Now the Krongard brothers — who have carried childhood nicknames, Buzzy and Cookie, through long careers — are tied up in the tangled story of Blackwater, the security contractor accused in the deaths of at least 17 Iraqis while guarding a State Department convoy in Baghdad.

The shorthand version boils their involvement down to that Washington catchall conflict of interest. The full story appears more complicated, less about cozy nepotism than about family estrangement.

But the concern about a conflict resulted Friday in the resignation of Alvin B. Krongard — Buzzy — from the Blackwater advisory board he had just joined. The company said he hoped to defuse accusations that his ties to the company were causing Howard J. Krongard — Cookie — the State Department inspector general, to go easy on Blackwater.

Alvin Krongard, 71, who left a $4 million-a-year job in investment banking to serve in top posts at the Central Intelligence Agency from 1998 to 2004, played what he describes as a routine role as an intermediary in helping Blackwater get its first big security contract from the agency for guards in Afghanistan in 2002.

A martial arts enthusiast and former Marine who has regaled friends with tales of punching a great white shark while scuba diving, Mr. Krongard said he later became friendly with the company’s founder, Erik D. Prince. They have hunted near Blackwater’s North Carolina training ground and at Mr. Krongard’s hunting club in Maryland.

Meanwhile, Howard Krongard, 66, a former general counsel at the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche who took the State Department job in 2005, was grilled this week by House Democrats. They accused Mr. Krongard (who does not use his nickname professionally, as his brother does) of alienating his staff and improperly interfering in investigations, including a Justice Department inquiry into allegations of weapons smuggling by Blackwater employees.

Hence Representative Henry A. Waxman’s disclosure at a hearing Wednesday, the latest in a string of revelations the California Democrat has used to torment the Bush administration.

“We have now learned that Mr. Krongard’s brother, Buzzy Krongard, serves on Blackwater’s advisory board,” Mr. Waxman declared, saying the inspector general had “concealed this apparent conflict of interest.”

Howard Krongard grew indignant, saying his brother had no ties to Blackwater.

“When these ugly rumors started recently, I specifically asked him,” he said. “I do not believe it is true that he is a member of the advisory board.”

Then came a break, and Howard phoned his older brother. Buzzy told Howard he had just returned from his first Blackwater advisory board meeting in Williamsburg, Va.

A chagrined Howard Krongard returned to the witness stand. “I want to state on the record right now that I hereby recuse myself from any matters having to do with Blackwater,” he said.

Howard Krongard has also disqualified himself from an inquiry into the construction of the American Embassy in Baghdad, and subordinates have lambasted him for what they called abusive and erratic conduct. John A. DeDona, Howard’s assistant for investigations until August, said in an interview that he believed top State Department officials had influenced the inspector general to back away from tough investigations, including that of Blackwater, which diplomats depend on for protection in Iraq under a $1.2 billion contract.

At the hearing, Howard Krongard, who did not respond to a request for an interview for this article, described himself as an apolitical auditing lawyer whose reforms have met resistance from subordinates who resent supervision. “I want to say in the strongest terms that I have never impeded any investigation,” he told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

From a distance, events might suggest that Mr. Prince chose to recruit Buzzy Krongard to curry favor with Howard Krongard and blunt any inquiry into Blackwater. But if that was Mr. Prince’s strategy, his intelligence was gravely flawed, according to people who know the family.

The Krongard brothers barely speak, friends say. In fact, Howard appears to be estranged from several family members, including his son Kenneth, whom he sued last year over a home loan. And Buzzy Krongard has said that when Howard called him a few weeks ago as he prepared his testimony, it was their first conversation in months.

Even their accounts of that brief call are at odds: Buzzy says that he told Howard he was joining the Blackwater advisory board, and that Howard said that was not a good idea. Howard testified that they had no such discussion.

Still, Buzzy Krongard said in an interview, “Whatever issues I have with my brother, I don’t question his integrity.” Given their estrangement, any attempt to reach Howard through him would have backfired, he said. “Based on our recent relationship,” he said, “the effect would be the other way around.”

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Buzzy Krongard spoke in his 15,000-square-foot Georgian mansion, Torch Hill, north of Baltimore, where family photos were propped atop an antique piano and memorabilia of his lacrosse days covered half a den wall.

The two brothers grew up in a middle-class West Baltimore neighborhood, sons of a partner in a uniform-manufacturing business. Buzzy’s nickname was bestowed by an aunt who thought he resembled a comics character by that name; a few years later, when his grandmother wanted to buy him a war bond, she had to ask his parents his formal name. Howard got his nickname from knocking on doors and asking for cookies, his brother said.

They went to public school and on to Princeton, and their athletic exploits — Buzzy as a midfielder, Cookie as a goalie — landed both men in the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame in Baltimore.

“Most people around here started to play lacrosse at 7 or 8,” said Ralph N. Willis, 76, another Hall of Famer from Baltimore and Princeton. “Buzzy and I used to play with those old wooden sticks.”

After rising to the helm of Alex. Brown & Sons, the venerable Baltimore investment banking firm, Buzzy Krongard oversaw its acquisition by Bankers Trust in 1997 and left the next year for the C.I.A., as a counselor to George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence. He became executive director, the No. 3 post, in 2001 and helped design the agency’s secret detention program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Krongard said he visited Blackwater’s training facilities for C.I.A. officers but did not meet Mr. Prince until early 2002, shortly after a visit to the agency’s quarters at a hotel in Kabul, Afghanistan. Mr. Krongard said he told the Blackwater chief, who was making the rounds at the C.I.A.’s headquarters in Virginia to drum up business, of his worries about the reliability of Afghan perimeter guards.

“I just thought, ‘Here’s a guy who says he can get highly skilled special operations types over there in a hurry to help with security,’” Mr. Krongard recalled. He said he connected Mr. Prince with the proper C.I.A. officials to discuss a contract but neither then nor later exerted pressure on the company’s behalf.

Buzzy Krongard vigorously defends Blackwater’s record in Iraq. “It’s very easy to second-guess them when you’re sitting back in an air-conditioned office,” he said. After Mr. Krongard’s resignation from the Blackwater board was announced late Friday, Mr. Prince expressed his dismay at the politically charged maelstrom around the company.

“It’s a real shame in this country when honorable men and private companies are presumed guilty based on politicized allegations, even while investigations are under way,” Mr. Prince said.

But Mr. Waxman seems disinclined to back down. He announced Friday that in light of the discrepancy between the brothers’ statements, he plans to call both to a hearing after Thanksgiving to sort it out.

“The information from Buzzy Krongard,” Mr. Waxman wrote to other committee members, “raises serious questions about the veracity of Howard Krongard’s testimony before the committee.”

Analysis:

This Associated Press story is based on the recent Senate vote on funding for the war in Iraq and US troop withdrawal. The AP story begins by saying that the Democrats have failed to end funding for the war or bring US troops home despite being elected a year ago by an anti-war vote. The story ends with similar comments but says that “Since taking the reins of Congress in January, Democrats have struggled to pass any significant anti-war legislation. Measures that passed along party lines in the House repeatedly sank in the Senate, where Democrats hold a much narrower majority and 60 votes are routinely needed to overcome procedural hurdles.” Why doesn’t the story further investigate the Democrats’ failure to block funding for the war? There is also no mention in the story that the Democrats in the Senate could use another tactic, a filibuster.

The only sources cited in this story are Democratic Senator Harry Reid and White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto. Do either of these comments help readers understand what is at issue with this recent vote? The article implies that this has delayed the funding issue for the war in Iraq and that the Democrats calculate that the military has enough money until mid-February. The article also states that “The delay will satisfy a Democratic support base that is fiercely anti-war.” What is this statement based on? Was there a poll or any response by the Democratic Party’s base to support such a claim?

There is also a substantial amount of the original AP story that was omitted from the GR Press version. The omitted text has a comment from Defense Secretary Gates and Republican Senator McConnell accusing the Democrats of being anti-troop. Much of the rest of the omitted text are partisan comments, which includes a comment from Michigan Senator Carl Levin. Why didn’t the GR Press include Levin’s comments in the text of their shortened version of the AP story? What exactly does Levin mean when he says “”We need to do more than say to the Iraqis that our patience has run out and that they need to seize the opportunity that has been given them. Their dawdling will only end when they have no choice.” Read Senator Levin’s full comments from the November 16 vote. After doing so, why do you think the AP writer chose that particular quote from Levin?

Story:

Nearly a year after anti-war voters put them in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass legislation ordering troops home from Iraq. Frustrated by Republican roadblocks, Democrats now plan to sit on President Bush’s $196 billion request for war spending until next year – pushing the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare and deepening their conflict with the White House on the war.

“We’re going to continue to do the right thing for the American people by having limited accountability for the president and not a blank check,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion bill by Democrats that would have paid for several months of combat but also would have ordered troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days. The measure, narrowly passed this week by the House, also would have set a goal of ending combat in December 2008.

The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.

Now, Democratic leaders say they won’t send President Bush a war spending bill this year. They calculate the military has enough money to run through mid-February.

The delay will satisfy a Democratic support base that is fiercely anti-war. But it also will give Republicans and the White House ample time to hammer Democrats for leaving for the holidays without funding the troops.

At the White House on Friday, deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said the spending gap is unjustified.

“We’d rather see the Department of Defense, the military planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers rather than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in the field,” Fratto said.

Since taking the reins of Congress in January, Democrats have struggled to pass any significant anti-war legislation. Measures that passed along party lines in the House repeatedly sank in the Senate, where Democrats hold a much narrower majority and 60 votes are routinely needed to overcome procedural hurdles.

Text from the original article omitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Responding to the congressional blockage, Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday signed a memo ordering the Army to begin planning for a series of expected cutbacks, including the layoffs of as many as 100,000 civilian employees and another 100,000 civilian contractors, starting as early as January, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

“The memo reflects the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in – we are in a real crisis,” Morrell said, noting that layoff notices to some civilian employees would have to be sent as early as mid-December. He decried Congress’ refusal thus far to provide the money needed to continue fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, accusing lawmakers of “holding hostage the well-being of our men and women in uniform, and our national security.”

“We ought to get the troops the funding they need to finish the mission without restrictions and without a surrender date,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

In May, Republicans agreed not to stand in the way of a $95 billion bill that would have set a timetable for troop withdrawals. Bush rejected the measure and Democrats lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, as Republicans anticipated.

Democrats eventually stripped the timetable from the bill and sent Bush the money without restrictions on force levels. The move was an unpopular one with many Democratic voters who say Congress should cut off money for the war.

As the year progressed, Democrats hoped for Republican defections. But a drop in violence this fall in Iraq helped to shore up GOP support for the war.

On Friday, only four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the Iraq measure: Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Sen. Christopher Dodd was the lone Democrat opposing it because he said it did not go far enough to end the war. Other Democrats, including Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, said they too opposed the bill as too soft but that they supported advancing debate.

“The only way to end the war is with a firm deadline that is enforceable through funding,” said Dodd, D-Conn.

Democrats acknowledge recent progress made by the military in Iraq but contend the security will be short-lived unless the Iraqi government reaches a political settlement.

“We need to do more than say to the Iraqis that our patience has run out and that they need to seize the opportunity that has been given them,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. “Their dawdling will only end when they have no choice.”

Republicans on Friday tried to counter with an alternative proposal that would have paid $70 billion toward the war without restrictions. That measure failed by a vote of 45-53, falling 15 short of the 60 needed to advance.

Republicans said there were appalled by Sen. Chuck Schumer’s comment, reported by The Associated Press on Thursday, that the Bush administration wouldn’t get a “free lunch.”

Schumer, D-N.Y., had told reporters that unless Bush accepted the restrictions, the Defense Department would have to eat into its core budget.

“The days of a free lunch are over,” he said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said Schumer’s comments were “unbelievable,” and Rep. Heather Wilson said the senator should apologize to the troops.

“Sen. Schumer only wants to fund pay, body armor and chow for the troops if he can put conditions on the money so that they cannot do the mission they have been ordered to do,” said Wilson, R-N.M.

The Pentagon confirms the military will not run out of money until mid February, after which all Army bases would cease operations.