When asked by Hatch, Panetta seemed to confirm an assertion by Senator Hatch (to quote a reporter paraphrasing the exchange) that “all major countries and intelligence agencies believed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.” (We don’t have But this is plainly not true. We can start with the Downing Street Memo and demonstrated that the British were skeptical, but of course their political leadership was playing along. Even the Washington Post, in the lead-up to the war, published the news of leaks that were were internal arguments at CIA.

Charles Davis noted that Panetta (and Senator Evan Bayh) misrepresented a National Intelligence Estimate with regards to Iran.

This is just like the Clinton and Bush administration habits of mis-stating how and when UN weapons inspectors left Iraq, of ascribing motivation without providing evidence, and of ignoring past admissions by the government that debunk prior false statements.

If we were there, we would have liked to ask some follow-up questions and have these statements directly reconciled with the public record.

It turns out Panetta doesn’t like those either.

Whatever solace you choose to take from vague but perhaps seemingly more progressive statements by Panetta on torture tactics, we remain worried that he doesn’t know or has chosen to deny the actual facts of recent history. Even if given the benefit of the doubt, we believe clear language and contribution of additional hard fact to eliminate controversy is the way to go. A confirmation hearing would be the place to demonstrate this skill.

You may parse the term anti-American differently than I, and if it is truly that subjective, I think that only gives more cause to use the term sparingly. To me the terms signifies a general disdain for all things American: Americans, American culture, the actions and policies of the US government. I’m not convinced that is accurate in the case of Muqtada al-Sadr. When you can isolate the sentiment to some subset of those categories a more accurate term can almost always be found, or qualifiers need to be deployed.

One of the additional instances was on May 2. I posted a “tweet” shortly after I heard it. My recollection is that in this case it came from a presenter, not in the voice of a reporter in the field. I visited the NPR site and went through the Morning Edition stories for that day and I cannot find the use in the only story in that day’s archived line-up about Iraq. It was a discussion about an interview with a member of Sadr’s militia.

It seems most likely that I heard the use in the presentation of news headlines by Carl Kasell (the headlines are a part of the broadcast which is not apart of the show per se, and not publicly archived as thoroughly as the show itself). Less likely, but not ruled out (as stories do sometimes seem to get tweaked before they’re rebroadcast for the second time on the East Cast or for the West Coast), perhaps I did hear it in this story and it got edited out.

In fact, the May 2 story was a reasonable piece that judiciously used qualifying terms and appears to be an honest attempt at figuring out what the “Sadrists” are all about. It effectively pokes holes in the idea that Sadr or his followers are truly “anti-American.”

But then, this morning, May 5, I heard the term used again by Tom Bowman in a news piece (again, not archived with Morning Edition and only select audio eventually shows up in the “News” section of the NPR web site).

I’m sure there are more than these three instances in the span of time between Brian’s first notice of the use and today.

This may seem to be nit-picky, but I think this is symptomatic of a broader problem where motivation is ascribed to subjects without due qualification or substantive evidence. Sometimes it comes in the form of accepting stated motivation (say from official spokespersons) other times it comes in the form of the inaccurate use of language. Both phenomenon are, at best, lazy and at other times malicious.

In this case, given the evidence of the nuanced reporting that can sometimes be found in the more in-depth segments of the show, I’m going to go with “lazy.” It seems to be shorthand slang to fit into those seconds-long spots in the brief newscasts. But it is inaccurate. If we return to Brian’s comment, that Sadr is not “anti-American” but “anti-occupation”, we find in his complaint a solution — the equally short but more accurate term “anti-occupation.”

There’s another problem of inequity, which I don’t have time to get into: That of a general trend of accepting the stated motivation of certain actors — say President Bush — and not accepting the stated motivation of others — let’s say, Osama bin Laden, in spite of evidence that both are just as believable, or that the accepted position actually isn’t supported whereas the stated motivation not accepted might be the most supported by evidence. But that’s worthy of an essay of its own and I’m hardly the first one to highlight these issues.

So CBS News did an investigation – asking all 50 states for their suicide data, based on death records, for veterans and non-veterans, dating back to 1995. Forty-five states sent what turned out to be a mountain of information.

And what it revealed was stunning.

In 2005, for example, in just those 45 states, there were at least 6,256 suicides among those who served in the armed forces. That’s 120 each and every week, in just one year.

This comes during the same weekend as the group Iraq Veterans Against the War hold their Winter Soldier summit just outside of DC. Veterans who have signed-up with the group are gathering together to share with each other, and the media, critical anecdotes from their experiences in the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Post story notes counter-demonstrators accuse the event of being too vague and unverified, but The Real News reports on IVAW’s verification process.

Meanwhile, a group called “Eagles Up!” brought a few hundred people to the National Mall in support of the wars. This coming week will bring anti-war demonstrators to the Capitol for a Wednesday rally on the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

Catholic anti-war demonstrators marched on the White House today, setting off at noon from St. Matthew’s Cathedral. Today’s action was part of their observation of Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent and a tradition with a theme of repentence.

A flyer being handed out quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying “Christ needs apostles ready to sacrifice themselves. He needs witnesses and martyrs.” This kind of quotation seems to be in line with other citations of church authority and scripture that this group uses to explain its non-violent activism.

Many of the participants also participate in a weekly Friday mid-day vigil outside the White House that has gone on since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

They were led by Art Laffin, a long-time activist and organizer with the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker. I’ve spoken with Laffin on a couple of occasions, including while doing a piece for Free Speech Radio News on the Friday vigil and the 3rd anniversary of the Iraq War, and I later witnessed him take part in a large march to the Pentagon that week. Laffin recognized and greeted me as he passed.

I encountered the march returning to my office during my lunch break. I was leaving the vicinity of the Lafayette Park as they approached, so I did not witness what happened after they arrived. Often this group engages in civil disobedience (I witnessed them engage in CD more than once, including during the previously mentioned march and on the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombings this year), but I hadn’t heard of any such plans this time around.

In Lafayette Park, on the North side of the White House, you could see signs of the processions imminent arrival if you knew what to look for. The uniformed Secret Service and Park Police seemed to have a few extra personnel on Pennsylvania Avenue and around the park. An elderly man sat down on a bench. He wore jeans and a reasonable jacket, but carried a priest’s cassock to pull over his other clothes, presumably to join the demonstrators.