For all the grim announcements of a "humanitarian disaster" sparked by the current re-eruption of the Congo war, there is an alarming paucity of clear reportage on who exactly is responsible for what violence. Most western media accounts are heavy on despair-inducing atrocity pornography and very light on actual facts. Within Central Africa, the Congolese media portray Rwandan aggression, while the Rwandan media accuse the Democratic Republic of Congo of sheltering Hutu militias bent on Rwanda's destabilization. And while western accounts emphasize endemic "festering hatreds" left by the 1994 Rwanda genocide (AP, Oct. 30), DRC diplomats accuse Western powers of backing Rwanda in a destabilization ploy against Kinshasa. Some examples...

From Reuters, Oct. 27:

Skinheads held over Obama death plot
WASHINGTON - Two white supremacist skinheads were arrested in Tennessee over plans to go on a killing spree and eventually shoot Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, court documents showed on Monday.

A week after the close of the Third Plenary Session of the 17th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing, officials announced Oct. 19 that new rules have been issued allowing China's 800 million farmers to "lease their contracted farmland or transfer their land use right." The long-anticipated reform is officially intended to double rural incomes by 2020, the official news agency Xinhua reports. The reform is portrayed in the Western media as a response to the growing tide of peasant unrest in China. But Xinhua also made clear the ultimate aim is actually a de-emphasis of agriculture. "This breakthrough is necessary," said Xu Xianglin, an economics professor at the Party School of the Central Committee. "It meets the need of industrialization and urbanization in the current stage."

More than 35 young women wearing tight trousers were arrested in South Sudan for disturbing the peace, senior police officials said Oct. 7. The arrests in Juba, the capital of autonomous South Sudan, were part of an ostensible campaign against youth gangs. The women were arrested the night of Oct. 5 and were released without charge the next day. Many Juba residents reacted angrily to the arrests. "We saw about 30 girls in two trucks piled up like animals," said Nok Duany, a civil servant. (Reuters, Oct. 8)

The Lebanese Industrialists Association is accusing Israel of falsely taking credit for traditional Middle Eastern cuisine. The organization's president Fadi Abboud said his group plans to sue Israel to stop it from marketing hummus and other regional dishes as Israeli. "It is not enough they are stealing our land," Abboud said. "They are also stealing our civilization and our cuisine." He said his group would also seek to claim baba ghanouj and tabbouleh as Lebanon's own. (AP, Oct. 7)

A little-noted news story about the transfer of Iraq-hardened combat troops for active duty at home in the immediate prelude to the elections has been seized upon by Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! Oct. 2 and—with considerably greater paranoia—Naomi Wolf on AlterNet and YouTube Oct. 8, as evidence of an imminent "coup d'etat" or "October Surprise." Gina Cavallaro wrote for Army Times, Sept. 30, emphasis added:

Sarah Palin went on the offensive this weekend, accusing Barack Obama of "paling around with terrorists." (LAT, Oct. 5) When Obama's tenuous ties to ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers were brought up a few months back, we pointed out that some of those making hay out of it were themselves far cozier with "terrorists"—such as Pat Buchanan, whose 1996 presidential campaign advisor Larry Pratt "pals around" with Klan and Aryan Nations types. Buchanan now enthuses that "of the four debaters we’ve seen, she [Palin] was the most interesting, attractive of them all." (NYT, Oct. 3) Indeed, there's much evidence that Palin and Buchanan—and his vile sidekick Pratt—are the proverbial birds of a feather...

Just in time for the elections, Bush orchestrates some "good news" in Iraq—the announcement of a pull-out of 8,000 troops early in '09 (NYT, Sept. 9), and the beginning of a turn-over of control of Anbar province and responsibility for paying and "directing" the Awakening Council militias to the Iraqi government (NYT, Sept. 1). Both these developments are not as rosy as the headlines make them appear, if you take the time to read (and analyze) the small print. The Times tells us the troop pull-out would leave 138,000 troops in Iraq by March—"still several thousand more than were there in January 2007, when Mr. Bush announced the 'surge' that brought the total over 160,000." Since nobody else does, we have to keep reminding that the end of the "surge" will leave more troops in Iraq than when "major combat operations" were declared over five years ago. In May 2003, Bush pledged that the 135,000 troops then in Iraq would be reduced by 100,000 over the next four months, leaving only a division to control Baghdad. But we're not supposed to talk about that.