It was historic and what he had to say mattered. Or might have if he'd been heard.
Some in the media seemed surprised that Bradley supporters were "energized." They'd spent the weekend prior rallying. But more importantly, now that Bradley had stated he was the whistle blower, there was no more need to hedge with "alleged" or "accused." Knowing he was the whistle blower allowed full out support to emerge. But will support translate into anything other than lip service?
For those late to the party, Monday April 5, 2010, when WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor."
So we're talking about serious things here. Unless we're Kevin Zeese who uses his time and space for nonsense.
Though Bradley didn't name Hillary Clinton in his remarks and spoke about warfare and counter-insurgency (the State Dept is over neither), it's all Zeese can focus on, "Problems which are as serious as they can be: war crimes, criminal behavior at the highest levels up to Secretary of State Clinton, unethical behavior and bullying of other nations."
Can you help anyone when you're that stupid?
Kevin Zeese whored for Barack Obama in 2008. He savaged Hillary. You'd think he'd be aware that Hillary was not president. Exactly what criminal behavior leads to Hillary, Kev?
None. And if he doubts that he can speak to Ann Wright about the cables he's convinced are connected to Hillary and she can explain (or try, he's rather dense) the nuts and bolts of State Dept cables.
In his rush to be useless, Zeese writes:
How can we avoid failing Bradley Manning? Ongoing support through the Bradley Manning Support Network continues to be essential but more than that, we need to do what we can to disseminate the information he leaked and work to create a national debate on a foreign policy that is seriously off-track.
Foreign policy? We're talking about warfare.
Kevin Zeese and his kindred want to use Bradley, they don't want to listen to him.
Why did Bradley do what he did?
Ben Nuckols (AP) quoted Bradley stating to the military court:
I felt we were risking so much for people who seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and hatred on both sides. I began to become depressed at the situation we found ourselves mired in year after year. In attempting counterinsurgency operations, we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists. I wanted the public to know that not everyone living in Iraq were targets to be neutralized.
They can't support Bradley because they refuse to hear him.
They have had nearly three years now to address counter-insurgency. They won't do it.
They won't shut up about Julian Assange but the ethical cowards can't say a word about counter-insurgency.
If you want to defend Bradley, you don't do it with sob stories about Julian Assange. You might do it by demanding publications quoting Michael Ratner note that he works on Assange's defense. That is why he repeatedly defocuses from Bradley to bring up Assange. He also defocuses as a host on Law and Disorder Radio where they waste one episode after another raging against movies and against the Catholic Church and avoiding the really important issues like counter-insurgency.
If you want to defend Bradley, you explain what motivated him, you explain what horrified him.
That's how you get more people to connect to him.
They are supposedly an organization trying to build support for Bradley but they refuse to discuss what was done. Maybe because they don't know?
If so, it's not like the media has helped them.
Counter-insurgency is war on a native people. You isolate the figures of resistance and target them -- with violence and every other means. You try to make an example of them so that the population will not follow them.
Counter-insurgency insists that you spy on the native population. During the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, the US government has enlisted anthropologists who have bastardized their training and betrayed the ethics of their profession.
When Bradley said that everyone living in Iraq was a target to be neutralized, that's what he's getting at.
Iraq was supposedly about 'liberation.' Once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, why the need for the military to stay?
To prop up a government made up of Iraqis who had been in exile for years and decades.
These politicians do not represent the people.
Counter-insurgency operations continue to take place in Iraq. The US military takes part in them. What do these operations mean?
You would think that even the cowardly like Amy Goodman could detail what counter-insurgency meant in the past to highlight what Bradley was seeing.
Instead, this is Amy Goodman's 2012 'coverage' of counter-insurgency: "I was opposed to General Petraeus becoming head of the CIA in the first place, because one of the CIA’s charges is to evaluate policy, and one of the big policies that needs to be evaluated is the troop escalation, what is called the 'surge,' in Afghanistan, the big counterinsurgency program that Petraeus put into place and then shepherded through as commander on the ground." Leave it to CIA contractor Juan Cole to distort counter-insurgency.
Readers with no idea of what was being discussed -- because Goodman never 'set' the topic -- would easily assumed that counter-insurgency was just an addition of troops.
Iraq War veteran Timothy Hsia did a strong job describing counter-insurgency at The New York Times' At War blog:
Counterinsurgency presupposes the idea that America and its military can adopt and understand a culture in a blink of an eye. A belief that a region steeped with thousands of years of culture and custom can be remade in a few short years. Counterinsurgency is full of contradictions; for example, it requires the military to be both destroyer and creator. The military is not only expected to close with and destroy the enemy, it is now also responsible for building democratic institutions and providing essential services. Moreover, a basic assumption in counterinsurgency is that there is a legitimate partner in the process that sees eye to eye with Western ideals of progress. When theory meets reality, the United States finds itself tied to partners whose goals are divergent with American ideas of progress or democratic ideals.
The people need to know why Bradley went public. Not some vague, cloudy reason, they need to know what happened.
Let's leave the safety of the left veal pen to see how the conversation's going down. This is from an exchange at Rolling Stone:
Cloudwalking knows the buzz but isn't up to debating Sean Huze. he can't even point otu that no informants ("anti-Taliban sources") were killed as a result of what WikiLeaks published. He can't take on the notion that there's one incident.
One incident wasn't what Bradley was talking about in court last week and one incident wasn't what was published by WikiLeaks.
Sean Huze is not coming over to Bradley's side. He's a lost cause. But those viewing the exchange between Huze and Cloudwalking, those on the fence or without a firm opinion (pro or con) can read the back and forth and be impressed with Huze's 'knowledge.'
It was, after all, just one incident, right?
It's not like anything except the attack on the Reuters journalists got much attention so there will be many who will think, "Oh, right, it was just one incident." In failing to address what happened in Iraq, in failing to condemn counter-insurgency, our supposed independent media imparts nothing.
If the so-called independent media gave a damn about Bradley, they would be doing features on how counter-insurgency targets the native population, attempts to splinter it so that it can be controlled or 'pacified.' Counter-insurgency has nothing to do with the stated goals at the start of the Iraq War so why do we allow the government to continue to carry it out?
Maybe because we don't know what it entails?
Despite having multiple years to address it, Democracy Now!, Law and Disorder Radio and countless other programs -- as well as publications -- have refused to address it. Kevin Zeese, while allegedly wanting to support Bradley, continues the shameful tradition today.
