Apparently, we had world peace for the last four years.  This according to the Christian Science Monitor. I know what you’re thinking:  “What about Darfur?  Israeli agression against Lebanese civilians?  Myanmar’s police state cracking down on monks?”

These don’t count against “world peace,” at least not in the views of the article’s authors.  Heck, even US occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t really count!  No, only state-on-state violence counts against “world peace.”  So who ended the world peace?  The authors blame Russia, despite the body of evidence suggesting Georgia was the aggressor in that conflict.  There is also evidence the US had a hand in the affair, as bodies were found among the dead with US flags on their sleeves.

Yet another instance of former government employees speaking out against the administration, this time it’s Scott McClellan, who had been with Mrr. Bush sincee his days as Texas governor. You may recall McClellan as the White House spokesman until his resignation in 2006. According to the BBC, Mr. McClellan admits in his new book that Bush relied on a “political propaganda campaign” to get support for what would become the Iraq Quagmire.

This November, you may want to consider voting for the only candidate who will actively seek to impeach President Bush for his deception of the American public. For Ralph Nader, impeachment is still on the table.

An AP news report interviewing CIA director Michael Hayden brings up a possible succession crisis concerning al-Qaida leadership.  The piece itself, however, lends itself to some questions, as the reporter did not reference any other sources except for director Hayden.

“The organization is a lot more networked than it is ruthlessly hierarchical,” Hayden said of the group behind the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

So Hayden says that there isn’t much of a managerial structure to the organization.  But the very next paragraph would suggest that there is:

A number of Egyptians are now part of al-Qaida’s top echelon and may struggle for power among themselves. Bin Laden’s current No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian. (Boldface is mine)

Then, further down the page:

“There’s an awful lot of senior leadership killed or captured including even in the last several months,” he said.”

For an organization that “isn’t ruthlessly hierarchical,” they sure have a lot of upper management!  If an “awful lot” of senior leadership has been killed, can we still count on a succession crisis?  Maybe there won’t be all that many leaders left.

Speaking on the subject of Guantanamo Bay inmates, the reporter writes:

The CIA is still holding prisoners but for less time. It recently turned over two detainees to the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base after a few months.

However, we are not given any other numbers to support this statement.  Two detainees were released but we aren’t told how many others were taken in with them and how long they have been incarcerated.  We also aren’t told the average length of incarceration at Guantanamo, or how many inmates are still sitting there with no idea of when or if they will ever be released.  How can two detainees possibly be used to represent the collective experience of all Guantanamo inmates?  And did Pamela Hess, the reporter, ask these questions?  Did she find us any numbers?  Did she find another expert on Guantanamo Bay inmates to either validate or repudiate Mr. Hayden?  No.  For the audience, it’s business as usual with corporate-owned media:  “Sit down, shut up, and believe what we tell you.”

Finally, there was more fear-mongering over Iran:

He believes Iran’s intention is to produce its own nuclear fuel, using Iranian technology.

“That gives them the potential at any moment to break out and create a weapon and that’s what of course is most troubling.”

But last December, US intelligence reports concluded that Iran posed no nuclear threat, having apparently halted operations in 2003.  Ms. Hess, where was this information in your story?  Mr. Hayden, is there new evidence since last December’s report to support your assertions about Iran?

Is anyone else troubled by this one-sided reporting?  I welcome all comments from all points of view.