A few days ago, John Cole wrote a long and thoughtful post excoriating some rightwing pundits for what he sees as their overreliance on scapegoating the liberal media each time some new revelation about potential U.S. military abuses is reported in the mainstream press. In a nutshell, Cole argues that an increasing number of conservative commentators have taken to exploiting the (often very real) anti-US and anti-military bias of the mainstream media, by way of attacking their motives, in order to deflect attention away from stories that, coming from the perspective of a long-time military man like Cole, are better served for being widely reported:
A free, open, and unrestricted press, to include one not cowed by idiotic calls for de facto censorship, is a vital component of a healthy democracy. While I concede and have written at great length that many in the press have all too often painted the picture that everything in Iraq is a failure, or tried to portray everything in Afghanistan as ruinous, I draw the line at bullying the press into refusing to cover stories of abuse, torture, and murder—which appears to be what Hugh and his supporters want.
I would like balanced stories about the progress we are making as well as our shortcomings and the failures. The wise path to media balance is not the suppression of our failures, but the promotion of our successes as well as the acknowledgement of our shortcomings. If we, as a public, are unaware of what is wrong, we and our representatives and leaders can not make the appropriate corrections. To admit errors in judgement in order to correct the mistakes made is reasonable, rational, and wise. To demand a loyalty test of the media, requiring that they cover up our shortcomings and mistakes, is petty, demagogic, and a recipe for disaster.
I am not absolving the press, either. When they get the facts wrong, they should be called to the carpet, as they have been in the Newsweek affair. But when they get it right, only a fool would start name-calling and throwing the equivalent of a hissy fit while aiding and abetting a cover-up.
At some point, though, reasonable people have to wonder—maybe the constant villification and active attempts to impede press investigations make it more difficult for them to get the story right? Maybe if we stopped villifying them, and let them do their job, and report the offenses, they would move on. No journalists I know are still covering My Lai. No journalists I know are still covering other great stains on our national dignity, and that is, in large part, because they have been investigated and dealt with. These stories are still stories because nothing is being done about it, and Hugh just doesn’t get it.
Why he doesn’t get it is beyond me, as Mr. Hewitt has even written a lengthy treatise about the internets titled Blog. Surely Mr. Hewitt must be aware that even if the NY Times and the military-hating American media he so despises doesn’t cover these scandals, the truth (or, worse yet—a perversion of the truth) will get out somewhere else. Surely he must recognize that honest accounts in the American press would be better than slanted accounts in a hostile foreign press, like, say Al Jazeera. Or Le Monde. Surely he must understand that people in the Middle East have newspapers, satellite channels, and, why, surprise of surprises—blogs.
John is right that “to admit errors in judgement in order to correct the mistakes made is reasonable, rational, and wise,” and that “the wise path to media balance is not the suppression of our failures, but the promotion of our successes as well as the acknowledgement of our shortcomings”; clearly, honest reporting of actual U.S. government and military missteps is one of the roles of a free press, and any truly honest reporting will show a willingness to note successes in a tone that isn’t quite so obviously gruding. However, I think John begins wandering too far afield rhetorically when he suggests that “to demand a loyalty test of the media”—which he unfairly characterizes as “requiring that they cover up our shortcomings and mistakes” (others, for example, might characterize the same behavior more charitably, noting that what desire of a free press is not the covering up of mistakes, but less of an active promotion of those mistakes as the defining theme in their coverage)—is “a recipe for disaster.”
I myself have been quite hard on a number of conservative commentators who at times, it seems to me, are so overcome with what this medium demands be a daily burst of outrage, that they risk becoming as demagogic and predictable as the mainstream liberal press they are so readily available to demonize. And this is the point of John’s post, I take it—that such constant vilification of the mainstream media’s motives, even when their reporting of the facts is accurate, runs the risk of turning valid, needed, and justified critiques of liberal bias into cliches in their own right.
But where John’s analysis fails is in its unwillingness to factor in the repeated attempts on the part of the media establishment to justify its own biases and mistakes—even in the face of overwhelmingly self-evident unethical journalistic behavior—which for years must have engendered in conservative commentators like Hewitt a sense of powerlessness that talk radio could never completely counter, but which the success of blogs as correctives to mainstream media laziness (and, at times, conscious deceptiveness) has begun to successfully counter.
And while John is right that the new media should be careful not to overplay its hand, at the same time I think it important that John try harder to understand—and account for—the impulse behind this willingness on the part of rightwing pundits to leap to certain conclusions about an adversarial press that has turned what was supposed to be a structurally adversarial relationship with those in power into one that more often than not resembles an adversarial relationship driven by a fundamental partisan ideological disconnect.
Which is not to say that commentators like Hewitt shouldn’t be more circumspect in their rhetoric; they should, or else they risk becoming the very cartoons wags on the left so delight in portraying them as: after all, the only thing easier than blaming the messenger for troublesome news (particularly when you recognize the messenger’s past complicity in actively gathering and propagating that news) is cynically recognizing and exposing that behavior in others. Still, so long as the mainstream press is perceived (and correctly so, in my estimation) as harboring a deep-seated mistrust of both the military and the conservative agenda, generally speaking, it is wise for rightwing commentators like Hewitt to question its motivations, even when the facts it report are correct—the sole caveat being that these necessary watchdogs should not seek to try to excuse the facts simply because they hold those who uncover said facts in contempt.
Railing against (and rectifying by way of our own postings) the unbalanced coverage of the mainstream press as a corrective to its often disingenuous presentation of larger narratives is a worthy pursuit. But doing so in such a way that our own rhetoric begins to show trappings of the same shabby ploys so frequently relied upon by liberal advocates in the media to further their own pre-conceived narratives, is the real recipe for disaster—in that it is certain to undercut the progress made by the alternative media in its fight to level the informational playing field.
****
update: this is interesting.
Listen, buddy, we come here for dick jokes. If we want thoughtful, rational discourse we’d go to…
Heh. Agree wholeheartedly with what you say. It’s just that bombthrowing tends to grab attention faster than logical debate, which is why prominent members of both the left and right do it. Like I said in the post you linked yesterday, I’m just suffering from “Outrage Fatigue”. I grow weary of anybody telling me that I need to maintain a constant state of outrage every day. I think it is safe to say that the only people now who don’t think the media has a liberal bias are some folks in the media and some liberals (who naturally think it is right down the middle). So, why do we have to constantly beat on that horse every day?
Jeff, I think you ended up writing something that was an order of magnitude more thoughtful than Cole’s piece.
Maybe the people in the military and the government would be more willing to admit to mistakes being made if it weren’t for the fact that admissions of anything less than perfection to the MSM results in automatic crucifiction. It’s kind of having a job in a “One-Mistake” company, that is, make one mistake and you are done. It becomes pretty natural to downplay mistakes if the known result is professional death.
Jeff, Thank You.
RC: You make a very telling point. The media HOUNDED Bush to apologize for Abu Ghraib, for the lack of WMDs, for each and every serviceman lost in the WOT, etc, yet Bush didn’t budge. Why? Because *any* admission of a flaw or shortcoming would be used to eviscerate him. Bush clearly isn’t perfect – nobody is – but he can’t admit to having even a second thought about anything because the pack of baying wolves that is the media just waits for the next President or other person of importance to devour.
Everyone wants to be the next Woodward & Bernstein. Nobody wants to report on the news anymore, their only desire is to BE the news.
They should stop trying to make the media be objective. They aren’t, and never will be. The best we can hope for is a Socratic debate between parties that are factual but that don’t pretend to be neutral. That way when you read a piece, you at least know where they’re coming from instead of their bias being hidden behind bogus claims of objectivity.
It’s just too easy to be totally accurate while also being totally biased. For example, every single news article on Iraq tells us how many soldiers have been killed, yet almost none mention the fact we deposed a horrible regime and installed a constitutional democracy.
I must be reading the wrong blogs. I haven’t heard any calls, or seen any attempts, to “impede press investigations.” To the contrary, I’ve heard calls for far more in-depth and transparent investigation than the press seems to be doing on its own recognizance, and I’ve observed that the press (in contrast to, say, the US gov’t at Abu Ghraib) doesn’t appear even to contemplate an investigation until its feet are held to the fire.
And what’s this non-sequitur about My Lai? A reporter still working on that long-ago tragedy would be called a “conspiracy theorist.” Unless there was a blogosphere in operation back in the day, I don’t see how the comparison applies, since we’re talking about the blogs’ new function as media watchdogs.
”No journalists I know are still covering My Lai.”
Although they are digging up and recycling two-and-a-half year-old reports of prisoner abuse investigations and packaging it as an investigative coup.
What stories is Mr. Cole saying are not being dealth with?
Abu Ghraib was in the military criminal justice system before the story broke. The Koran-flusing incident didn’t happen, so it’s hard to see how the Army is supposed to deal with it. The abuses detailed in the NYT recently are an old story, some of whose perps have already been sentenced.
The media should be allowed to investigate, but the First Amendment does not mean the rest of us have to believe them, or ignore their biases, or keep quiet about our conclusions. Or buy their stuff.
“At some point, though, reasonable people have to wonderâ€â€maybe the constant villification and active attempts to impede press investigations make it more difficult for them to get the story right?”
or
At some point, though, reasonable people have to wonderâ€â€maybe the constant villification and active attempts to impede [the military] make it more difficult for them to [do their job]?
If the next several elections come down to Military v. Media-I’ll take the military along with a majority of Americans.
Richard:
Abu Ghraib was in the military criminal justice system before the story broke.
More importantly, the Abu Ghraib investigation and prosecution was mentioned, repeatedly, in daily briefings MONTHS before the story “broke”. Mary Mapes (remember her?) was HANDED the photos; she didn’t do any investigation worth mentioning!
The press takes information collected by the military in the course of the military policing itself, then repackages it in a way that makes it seem the grunts would never clean house unless the press were there to keep them honest.
To say that because the media has free speech they should be protected from the criticism (re: free speech) from “Hugh and his supporters” seems to me to be a very incredible proposition.
I think it’s important to note, though, that LaShawn Barber, for one, argued that even were the Newsweek allegations true, Newsweek should not have reported them.
Now, in a way I agree with herâ€â€as a supporter of the war and the Bush Doctrine, I feel invested to the point that I want to insulate both from an inevitable and relentless media onslaught that is the result of such revelations. But this is primarily because the media, as it is currently operating, is an ideological bully pulpit for liberal criticisms of a conservative-led US foreign policy, NOT because it’s correct for me to desire the suppression of information.
In an ideal world, the press wouldn’t act as Robert Crawford notes they often do:
No, in a perfect world, the mainstream media, while not laying claim to being “objective,†would at least play fair and could approach those in power, regardless of party, with the same adversarial zeal. But it has become far too obvious that this is not the case, which has led many conservatives into positions that unfortunately betray defensiveness. As RC notes above:
“CBS News has a culture, has a history that those of us who work here, it’s very real—that we see it as a sort of magical mystical kingdom of journalistic knights”
–Dan Rather, CNBC, May 22, 05
“Journalistic knights”? More like knight-errants.
“The media HOUNDED Bush to apologize for Abu Ghraib . . . Bush clearly isn’t perfect – nobody is – but he can’t admit to having even a second thought about anything because the pack of baying wolves that is the media just waits for the next President or other person of importance to devour.”
While I agree that our media is overly geared towards controversy, I really do not understand how conservatives can’t see the difference between non-policy related controversies and important policy-related controversies. Obviously, this is subjective to some extent, but everyone should at least admit that some of the things Bush has been “hounded” over are very, very legitimate policy concerns. Abu Ghraib was not some small indiscretion – like making a slightly off-color remark, or saying “nuclear†wrong – it was a serious departure from the Geneva Conventions, which was one of the primary legacies of World War II. Even if you agree with the Bush administration’s policies on this issue, you should admit that it is not merely some media conspiracy. Even though I disagree with Bush’s tax cut, I would never act like the conservative viewpoint on, say, taxation policies, is just a conspiracy by the National Review and the Weekly Standard.
I was having this exact same conversation with a friend of mine at school, who had criticized a Con Law professor for showing “liberal bias” by telling him that Abu Ghraib was a serious departure from the US military tradition. I couldn’t believe he would suggest that this Con Law professor, who also had been a well-respected judge in the state, was merely a mouthpiece of some “liberal elite” conspiracy theory. I mean, if the opinion of one of the most respected professors at the law school – on a legal topic – can just be dismissed out of hand as part of the conspiracy, something is horribly wrong.
Even stranger to me was the fact that my friend who was making light of Abu Ghraib was Jewish – how could anyone who is Jewish not be concerned about the Geneva Conventions? Perhaps he just didn’t know the history behind them. I view the Geneva Conventions as one of the living legacies of WWII – one of the things that shows why our families’ sacrifices were truly worth it, whether they were resisting Hitler from within Europe, or from over here.
At any rate, it is fine for people to complain about “liberal bias,” if they want to. But putting that as the top priority, over what the President and Congress actually do, is just bizarre to me. When I talk to my friends who voted for Bush, they don’t even try to defend most of his policies – they just talk about Michael Moore or Dan Rather or whoever. In other words, deference to elected officials, who are supposed to be our representatives, is juxtaposed with an obsessive scrutiny of media outlets, which you can always turn off/not read/boycott.
Am I the only person who still considers President of the United States a more powerful and important position than anchorman or columnist?
No, you are not.
But you do show a willingness to diminish the power of the press for the purposes of your argument, as well a willingness to overstate Bushco’s culpability Abu Ghraib, while downplaying the military’s own actions in addressing the concerns and prosecuting the offenders.
I would tend to agree that abu graib really wasn’t a policy issue. because what those particular soldiers did was wrong, and they are being prosecuted for it. it’s not any different than when similar acts are commited in prisons all over the world.
The calls exist, and often by the prominent. Remember when the video of the marine shooting the wounded guy in Fallujah came out? A lot of people were calling for the reporters head, calling him a traitor, saying he should be arrested even. In this case, the guy went out of his way to offer the military some time to do an investigation before the video was released. What was he sposed to do, burn it? Scrub his memory and lie in his reporting? Yes, according to a number of voices in the blogosphere. That is wrong and wrongheaded. A damn good and brave reporter, one of the few actually out in the field I might add, was piled on unfairly. There has been too much of this stuff. Yes the media needs reform, but the last thing it needs is more deception.
I disagree with you about that particular reporter, who also ran a blog and made it clear that what he was doing was jaded and self-serving.
He was in a combat situation, the shooting was justified (since ruled so, but not after putting the soldier’s family through trials they shouldn’t have had to face), and soldiers don’t have to time to stop and consider what a shooting might look like out of context and in retrospect. That that particular story may have aided in putting them in that position—or in putting the military in a postition where in the future it will avoid difficult combat missions because it fears that the brutality necessary to secure those areas might be fodder for a sensationalistic press and a few sanctimonious politicians or pundits—is a shame, and it weakens the military’s ability to do its job.
Had that reporter asked around—or even been honest about what he saw—he would have avoided releasing that tape, which added nothing to legitimate discussions of appropriate military action. Those soldiers were engaged with an enemy attacking them from inside a mosque and had fallen victim to an enemy ploy of strapping live grenades to dead bodies, or faking surrender only to unleash an ambush. In a combat situation, we simply cannot afford to hamstring our soldiers just because we have great video that might “raise questions.”
Thad – It’s strange that all your Republican “friends” seem to be clueless… About as clueless as your understanding of the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib and the relationship to the military command structure, and these incidents gravity compared to the treatment of POW in Korea and Vietnam.
“I disagree with you about that particular reporter, who also ran a blog and made it clear that what he was doing was jaded and self-serving.”
I suppose that is why he wrote a heart wrenching open letter to the unit in question explaining his actions and how much he worried about them and the consequences for these men. I urge people to read Kevin Site’s blog and decide for yourselves. This is one of the good guys, not one of the usual dolts sitting in the Palestine Hotel bar all day waiting for the latest bombing report.
“Had that reporter asked aroundâ€â€or even been honest about what he sawâ€â€he would have avoided releasing that tape, which added nothing to legitimate discussions of appropriate military action. “
First of all, he did ask around, and he in fact asked the military if they wanted him to hold the tape until an investigation could be done. They told him to go ahead with it. Secondly, this is exactly the attitude im talking about. What would you have him do? Destroy the tape and lie about the incident? That is plain wrong. Is he only supposed to report good news? Thats doesnt make him a reporter, it makes him a propagandist. Reporters report, that is their job. The man was good enough to provide tons of context, which most reporters wouldnt and he himself was the soldiers biggest defender in that regard. But the bottom line is, what would you have him do?
So basically John Cole is demanding we give them the benefit of the doubt and focus on their successes instead of the failures. Talk about a hypocrite. We’re giving them the same kind of treatment (presumption-of-guilt and failure emphasis) that they’re giving the military, and at least we’re sticking with facts instead of making things up.
Been to his site, Mark. At the time of his initial release of the video. Wrote about the incident here.
I’m not going to re-argue the same points again. You say “reporters report, that is their job.” Well, I don’t buy it—though I suspect that such is precisely what they tell themselves every time they need to muster the requisite justification to report something whose sole purpose for being reported is to gin up controversy and to increase their own personal media profile. Site wanted to be part of the news.
Your suggestion that his two choices were either to release the tape publicaly, along with his faux-sincere “heartfelt” (and longwinded) justification for doing so, or else to destroy the tape and “lie about the incident” (and just how would he be “lying,” exactly, if he reported that a marine shot and killed a previously wounded, out-of-uniform insurgent who he believed might be booby-trapped or reaching for a weapon, and that he did so just a few short days after others in his unit were killed under similar circumstances by a booby-trapped body? To me, that seems like a much more honest “report” than an out of context video release intended to “raise questions” about U.S. military actions in a very heated urban combat zone), is a false either /or. He might just have easily have filed a report that explained what happened without using video he knew would be sensational outside of a broader context of the fighting in Fallujah.
Bottom line is, Site bought himself some insurance by supporting the soldiers after doing his damndest to make their lives hell, knowing full-well that he was doing so for no other reason than his own professional and personal glorification.
Thad/Mark,
The reason why it would be appropriate for items such as the Koran-flushing or the Fallujah incident not to be aired, is because they will not be presented as part of a comprehensive, balanced picture of what is going on. They will be presented as 99% of the picture, not the 1% that they actually represent. And until there is an accurate portrayal provided, these incidents should not be published.
I mean, if the opinion of one of the most respected professors at the law school – on a legal topic – can just be dismissed out of hand as part of the conspiracy, something is horribly wrong.
The something which has gone horribly wrong is the leftists in the media and in universities. They have spent so long attempting to tear down the institutions of this country, and succeeding in part, via distortions and outright lies, that it’s rational to not believe anything a liberal says without checking it.
Well, all I would point out about Abu Ghraib is that the Fay report specifically cited a memo Rumsfeld had signed off on as contributing to what happened at Abu Ghraib.
In December 2002, Rumsfeld signed off on an 11 October 2002 memo, and even though he later revised the authorization, the Fay report cited it as contributing to the improper use of dogs at Abu Ghraib:
Fay report, page 117 – “Interrogations at Abu Ghraib were also influenced by several documents that spoke of exploiting the Arab fear of dogs: a 24 January 2003 ‘CJTF 180 Interrogation Techniques,’ an 11 October 2002 JTF 170 ‘Counter-Resistance Strategies,’ and a 14 September 2003 CJTF-7 ICRP.”
The Fay report also cites the memo as contributing to the removal of clothing – which led to the dehumanization of prisoners in Abu Ghraib.
Fay report, p. 121-122 – “The removal of clothing for both MI and MP objectives was authorized, approved, and employed in Afghanistan and GTMO . . . [citing 11 Oct. memo] . . . Soldiers simply carried forward the use of nudity into the Iraqi theater of operations.”
Whether Abu Ghraib compares with mistreatment of troops in Korea or Vietnam isn’t really relevant here – I don’t recall trying to make any comparison, and that shouldn’t be relevant unless you’re suggesting that the US should race its enemies to the bottom when it comes to ethics. Unfortunately, that seems to be the main justification for Abu Ghraib: Al Qaeda, or Saddam, or whoever else, would do it to us, so we should do it to them.
The Europeans are mistaken when they say we’ve become arrogant. It’s the exact opposite – we’ve lost our sense of pride.
Do you guys realize what you are arguing? Ex, Its telling that you lump the Quoran flushing with the Fallujah incident. Doesnt it bother you that one is fabricated and badly sourced while the other the reporter physically observed and taped? Doesnt the truth matter? You can only report what you see, it wasnt Kevin Site’s job to rebalance the entire broadcast schedule of NBC news.
“Your suggestion that his two choices were either to release the tape publicaly”
What were his other choices? Im still waiting to hear. You may feel free to judge Sites motives, but you arent the guy that has been to Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Tsunami disaster for the last five years.
Destroying the tape would have been tantamount to lying. The story would have got out and he would be revealed as a liar and betrayer of his profession. What would the consequence of that have been? Would the military have been assumed to have pressured him? Who knows what bad would have come. Unintended consequences. Why not air on the side of the truth? Doesnt that matter to this conversation to you guys? We can talk about Vietnam, and i’ll happily throw back at you that had the media been doing its job early in the war and not reporting all rosy scenarios Tet wouldnt have been the shock it was and maybe the country doesnt turn on the war. Unintended consequences.
Thad, you just don’t get it. Abu Ghraib wasn’t the huge issue the media, and you, made it out to be. It was blown out of proportion specifically because of the Bush hatred of the MSM. More importantly, the real story – that the Army discovered, investigated and prosecuted the abuses – is virtually untold.
With the ridiculous stories about Guantanamo Bay, the MSM has an overt agenda. The MSM wishes to destroy this country’s ability to detain terrorists outside of the criminal process. I can’t help but believe that those in the MSM attacking Guantanamo Bay know that if they succeed, they will cripple our war on terrorism and/or cripple our court system.
The Canadians had incidents of abuse of prisoners in Somalia during the UN operations there that was no worse than Abu Ghraib, and yet 99% of Americans have never heard of it ( heck its rare for me to encounter a Canadian who heard of it ). Because it didn’t feed into the anti-American biases of the media.
Ditto the sexual abuse of children by UN peacekeeping forces – a series of stories barely reported at all.
The Fay report basically lent credence to Judith Butler’s rather unremarkable linguistic assertion that an action continues to act after the initial intentional force behind it ceases to guide it.
Which in hermeneutic theory is a fancy way to empower the reader (at the expense of the author) in determining who gets to decide on the meaning of a text; but in practice, it has become, under the auspices of credulous post-structuralist thinking, a way to place responsibility wherever one chooses—either with the originating actor or somewhere else down the hermeneutic line.
In the case of your comment, the effort is to trace abuses back to something “suggested” by Rumsfeld, even though the report concluded, ultimately, that these suggestions were not meant to sanction the kind of abuses too general guidelines allowed under certain misreadings.
“Even stranger to me was the fact that my friend who was making light of Abu Ghraib was Jewish – how could anyone who is Jewish not be concerned about the Geneva Conventions? Perhaps he just didn’t know the history behind them. I view the Geneva Conventions as one of the living legacies of WWII – one of the things that shows why our families’ sacrifices were truly worth it, whether they were resisting Hitler from within Europe, or from over here.”
The person probably realized that the people we’re fighting actually want to repeat Hitler’s crimes. In short, he has a sense of perspective, and doesn’t expect an unblemished war effort, especially when fighting monsters.
Mark —
re: other choices…
“The reason why it would be appropriate for items such as the Koran-flushing or the Fallujah incident not to be aired, is because they will not be presented as part of a comprehensive, balanced picture of what is going on. They will be presented as 99% of the picture, not the 1% that they actually represent. And until there is an accurate portrayal provided, these incidents should not be published.”
Furthermore, they’ll be treated as pre-judged transgressions by people who can’t even conceive of dealing with religious fanatics trained to defeat interrogation and then lie about it.
Me, I just find it exquisite that Kevin Sites does business as Shoot First Productions.
Pardon, just checked my emails w/ Sites. Actually it’s Shoot First Films.
“In short, he has a sense of perspective, and doesn’t expect an unblemished war effort, especially when fighting monsters.”
I agree totally that a war will never be unblemished; however, I disagree that with the idea that media coverage of foreign policy issues should be unflinchingly “positive” to the point that it leaves out what’s really going on. All I hear is people complaining about media coverage, without thinking about the alternatives. Do you think media coverage should be regulated so that there is a mandatory “50% positive and 50% negative” split on every issue?
In that scenario, coverage of everything, even a serious threat like North Korea, a rogue nation that actually probably does have WMD, would have to be 50% “they have nukes,” and 50% “they don’t have nukes” – regardless of the facts. Articles about global warming would be 50% “it’s real,” and 50% “it’s b.s.” Is this what everyone wants?
If anything, I’d said that we’re already getting dangerously close to this. CNN.com often reads like a recitation of the two parties’ press releases. Petting both sides’ egos has become more important than the facts.
“Abu Ghraib wasn’t the huge issue the media, and you, made it out to be.”
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t see how you can say that. Lindsey Graham, a former counterintelligence interrogator who is not part of the liberal media, was one of Senators who helped clear the air. Over 80% of Americans disagreed with you right after the scandal broke, and 75% of Americans disagreed with you as of August 2004. I won’t even start on world opinion about Abu Ghraib.
If you have any kind of backup for your claim that Abu Ghraib wasn’t a big deal, please provide it.
Ok Thad here’s the deal. I work as a shift commander in the local county jail. Do you have any idea how many layers exist in just my jail? Officer, Sergeant, Captain, Major, Facility Commander, Chief of Operations, Deputy Director, Director. And the Director answers to the County Executive who answers to the County Council. I work day shift in a facility that has eleven floors in it. Do you think that I could possibly be in all of those places at once? Do you think it’s possible that a couple of my officers might have some inmates out playing naked twister and I wouldn’t know about it? Now check out what a large institution the US military is and how many layers would exist at any prison. Do the math. The reason that the average person might think that it’s a big deal is that they just don’t fucking understand the simplest thing about what we or anyone does in a prison all day and all night. That was an aberration performed by a few bored graveyard officers. Now if my officers happen to take someone out and monkey stomp his ass then eventually that will make it to Internal Investigations and those officers will face disciplinary actions. But nobody marches over to the Executive’s office and asks for his resignation or says he is responsible. From my perspective Abu Ghraib wasn’t a big deal and anyone who thinks it was doesn’t truly understand the scope of this issue. Get off yer soap box and start worrying about how American POW’s are treated on a REGULAR basis.
In the case of your comment, the effort is to trace abuses back to something “suggested†by Rumsfeld, even though the report concluded, ultimately, that these suggestions were not meant to sanction the kind of abuses too general guidelines allowed under certain misreadings.
I didn’t argue that Rumsfeld was the mastermind behind every incident at Abu Ghraib, specifically “plotting” them, or anything like that. However, in corporate and governmental organizational structures, it is typical for the head of the division/agency to bear some of the responsibilty for poorly executed policies, especially if he/she helped create the circumstances that led to the problem.
Even you think Rumsfeld personally should bear absolutely no responsibility for Abu Ghraib – and remember that he offered to resign twice – the Schlesinger report concluded that the responsibility for failing to enforce proper discipline went up the chain of command “all the way to Washington.” That’s much more direct than the post-modernist Rumsfeld apologia in one of the earlier posts. Unless the Schlesinger panel was “clueless about the military command structure,” I’d say there’s something to the claim that it wasn’t just a few bad apples.
“No journalists I know are still covering My Lai.”
Bzzzt! The 2004 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting was given to the Toledo Blade for “their powerful series on atrocities by Tiger Force, an elite U.S. Army platoon, during the Vietnam War.”
Thad.
Abu Ghraib was a big deal as Tet 68 was a loss for the US.
Because the media said it was.
Nobody was killed at Abu Ghraib, at least in the incident that inflamed everybody.
Nobody was beheaded with a dull knife while screaming and gurgling their lives away.
While it is considered gauche to compare it to fraternity hazing, people die in fraternity hazing–admittedly with a much larger sample–and naked twister is nothing special in some places.
Nobody likes “humiliation” but the libs have claimed that Moslems are particularly sensitive to such things. So when we have a head-chopping kiddy killer who builds car bombs in his spare time forced to disrobe, we figure he’s emotionally having a near-death experience without the tunnel of light. Our guys would be glad–infinitely glad–if that was all that happened to them in the hands of practitioners of the Religion of Peace My Sweet Aunt Fanny. Or anybody clear back to the Germans in WW II. They were okay, but only if you weren’t Jewish or in comparison to how they treated, say, Russian POWs.
Let’s give the mujs the benefit of the doubt and say that their humiliation is a tool made up by the US left with which to bash Bush. No way would we consider a grown man, especially from another culture–other cultures are always superior to ours and grow stronger people, too–such a wimp as to be reduced to tears at the sight of a woman’s boobs, or bare arm, or having to disrobe.
Yes, I know they have different mores of modesty, but that’s not the same as saying that disrobing is tantamount to torture. If it were, those boys would have been disrobing their prisoners when they were working for Saddaam. And, the story goes, they didn’t stop there. Must be a reason, huh?
You think?
Jeez.
well, thad, also from the story you linked.
which also addresses your argument that it’s a policy issue. sorry to quote so much, but you seemed to quit reading once you found the phrase you wanted. there’s also this:
Jeff:
OUTSTANDING post. I hope others pick up on this (although I recently read someone major describe you as something like “rarely serious”—a**hole). Just three minor points:
(1) Forget Hewitt—this is just another of his meat-slapping contests.
(2) “Counteract,” not “countermand.” Sorry, but vocabulary matters.
(3) In your refernce to LaShawn Barber, you’re still dodging the question I asked (long before she did, but still way too late, as usual, b/c of my day job): If the Newsweek story had been true, should they still have run it? I’m conflicted on that; be interested in your thoughts.
Sorry, forgot to add: “rarely serious”? I’m OUTRAGED about that crack.
That would be up to them, really. If they did, the debate would become whether or not the story was newsworthy or not. But I couldn’t fault them for pandering to an anti-Rumself readership.
With regard to the Saddam in his underwear story I wrote that the Post and the Sun should have held back on the story. Just because they have the info doesn’t mean they have to run it. The Qu’ran in the toilet story is arguably far more newsworthy, but if it turned out to be an isolated incident, I don’t see why Newsweek would feel compelled to run it.
No, that don’t cut it: “up to them,” “newsworthy” is still just dodging. Let’s say YOU own Newsweek: do you run it? (BTW, I wasn’t talking about Saddam in his tighty-whities—that’s small potatoes (so to speak).)
…which means that were I running Newsweek, my decision would depend on whether or not I thought it was an isolated incident.
And if it was, perhaps I run it with that caveat, I don’t know. Hard to say when you’re not actually, y’know—running Newsweek.
But you ARE running Newsweek—meaning that, among people who matter, you (and the few others like you) are (or soon will be) far more consequential than the editors of the soon-to-be-defunct Newsweek (or the already-defunct Dan Rather). That’s why I was asking for some pure insight into your citizen journalistic instincts; not just bustin’ your chops. If it’s ugly-but-true-and not isolated, is that enough reason?
If it’s systematic and I’m the editor of Newsweek, I probably do.
Yeah, I’m afraid you’re right. I was hoping you’d come up with a principled alternative theory. Guess I’ll have to give them a pass on this one. Damn.
Nobody was killed at Abu Ghraib, at least in the incident that inflamed everybody.
This is simply not true. If you remember back to the Abu Ghraib pictures, some of them were of the guards posing with a dead detainee. Turns out that the detainee died while under interrogation. Lets not mince words–he was tortured to death. The death was covered up to the point of sticking an IV in the body and wheeling him it out so it could be disposed of quickly. Nobody has been charged in that death.
The military has admitted to over 100 deaths of detainees in custody in Afghanistan and Iraq, 37 of which were labelled homicides. This was several months ago. So far nobody has been charged with a homicide offense for any of these deaths. So much for the military adequately policing itself. No officer has been court-martialled for any the abuses. One Reserve General has received non-judicial punishment and reduced in rank. At every step the Administration has stonewalled all attempts to conduct an independent investigation as to why things got so out of control at Abu Ghraib.
And the New York Time’s article of last week confirms that the abuse was not isolated to one location. Two men were tortured to death in less than a week, there is no other way to describe their treatment. The initial military investigation was basically a coverup and recommended no charges be brought. One of the officers in charge has been promoted. 27 people have now been recommended for court martial, 7 of them actually charged but not yet tried. None has yet been charged with a homicide offense, and the most serious homicide charge pending is involuntary manslaughter.
And as for Rumsfeld. He has publically admitted, on camera, to personally committing at least one war crime, for which the press gave him a pass.
At the request of George Tenet, He ordered the military in Iraq to hide detainees from the ICRC. This is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. There has never been a question about the status of detainees in Iraq. They are covered by the Geneva Conventions.
So much for the press being out for blood.
Here’s the problem with the ‘isolated incident’ theory: if everyone is systematically burying or covering up each isolated incident, the pattern is never brought to light, or more to the point when the pattern is brought to light it is in an explosion of coverup, scandal, and disillusionment. I dont trust the MSM because they are generally biased and lazy. I <objective truth <i>does</i> exist and it must be respected. Once you start down the path of lies and coverups, where do you stop? If its ok to lie to the American people, even via ommision, in the interests of the ‘good of the country’, what else is it ok to do? Steal? Cheat? Kill? If some reporter is about to break a story that could really damage the war effort, is it ok to put a bullet in his head? Why or why not? Isnt it in the best interest of the majority? I warn you, when you start down this path you dont know where it will take you. Morality is our only compass, and ends do not justify means. Lies and deceit have a cost all their own that is often unknown and unknowable until the bill comes fully do.
Mark, like it or not you are either for us or against us. When you harm the United States, whatever your excuse, you harm me. When my Marine grandson goes to Afghanistan this winter he will be more at risk because Newsqueek took a poke at the President.
When you harm the United States, whatever your excuse, you harm me.
When this country excuses the use of torture and inhumane treatment and ignores the rule of law and international treaties in the name of fighting terror, that is what harms the United States.
When we ignore clear signs that the policies and actions of the civilian leadership of this country is what led to the abusive practices that occurred at detention facilities, that is what harms the United States.
When we pretend that the actions at Abu Ghraib, and now I suppose Bagram, were isolated incidents, that were fully investigated and that all the persons responsible were aggressively and fully prosecuted, and that there was no systemic failure of leadership and policy that led to those crimes, that is what harms the United States.
When innocent taxi drivers are tortured to death and it takes two and a half years to bring charges against the responsible parties, and the most serious charges currently being contemplated are involuntary manslaughter, that is what harms the United States and endangers your grandson’s life.
I would say Mr. Frederson gets his news exclusively from moveon.org.
Dont you think if there were actual deaths, attributable to the US Military, the MSM would have run with that story instead of the panties on the head/naked pyramid stories ?
It also might be a good time to throw in that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists and/or insurgents. They are treated humanely because thats what the US, on the whole, does- we treat people humanely. Do you think the head chopping barbarians on the other side of this conflict will be as kind.
I still can’t believe with all the poor folks in Iraq who are tortured and killed, then shown on video, the left is still concerned with panties and leashes. You give me Al-Zackawi and a couple of his buddies and I guarantee you, woman’s underwear and naked pyramids will be the least of their worries.
“Done” Heh. Indeed.
*When this country excuses the use of torture and inhumane treatment and ignores the rule of law and international treaties in the name of fighting terror, that is what harms the United States. *
Nobody’s excusing it jackass. The guilty were proscecuted by the military. Plus, scuse me if we don’t all buy into your “international law” bullshit- I find that the purpose of international law is generally to screw the Americans. Finally, wow, I’m sorry, we had “treaties” with terrorists in Iraq ? I must have missed it when we signed it.
*When innocent taxi drivers are tortured to death and it takes two and a half years to bring charges against the responsible parties, and the most serious charges currently being contemplated are involuntary manslaughter, that is what harms the United States and endangers your grandson’s life.*
Ahhhhhh, yes, our self policing has done so much to cool the “rage” of the terrorists. Have you ever stopped to think that it doesn’t matter what we do, islamic extremist will still hate you, me and every other American, simply because of where we were born. Your take on things is amazingly misguided and incredibly naive.
Nobody’s excusing it jackass.
Funny, you say nobody is excusing it, then you spend three paragraphs excusing it, including apparently excusing the torturing to death of a completely innocent taxi driver.
It also might be a good time to throw in that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists and/or insurgents.
Actually, it does apply to the insurgents and, yes even the terrorists, in Iraq (unless they are foreigners in Iraq illegally, then it is unclear whether Geneva applies). If you don’t believe me, ask the Pentagon or the President. It is the official policy of the United States Government that the Geneva Conventions are fully applicable in Iraq. Not that we really have a choice. Since both Iraq and the U.S. are signatory nations we were bound, as an occupying power, to comply with the Geneva Convention. And by the way, the U.S. was one of the prime proponents of the Geneva Conventions.
And regardless of whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply, all persons under our control, no matter what their status, are covered by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Another treaty we were a major advocate of and has been ratified by Congress.
Dont you think if there were actual deaths, attributable to the US Military, the MSM would have run with that story instead of the panties on the head/naked pyramid stories ?
Thank you for proving my point. The MSM is not doing its job and demanding that these deaths be investigated. They are hardly the anti-American anti-military monsters the rightwing blogosphere paints them when the military admits that 37 deaths in custody have been ruled homicides and nobody asks, “well how come nobody has been charged?”, or if they did never bothered to follow up. Or when Donald Rumsfeld casually mentions, as a favor to George Tenet, that he ordered the Army to hide detainees at Abu Ghraib from the ICRC and nobody asks him, “Isn’t that a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions?”
Go back and look at the Abu Ghraib pictures and the report. I am not making it up. Some of the pictures show the guards posing with a dead detainee. Sworn statements say the detainee died while being interrogated by non-uniformed personnel (apparently private CIA contractors or CIA). Nobody has been held responsible for that death.
“Mark, like it or not you are either for us or against us. “
And again, i’d like to know what the hell that entails. You guys have no problem with chucking out the first amendment, which others are expendable? Would locking Isakoff up without a trial have been ok ‘for the good of the nation’? Seizing his computer without a warrant? Putting a marine in his office? A bullet in his head? How far you guys want to take this?
Like it or not, what you guys are talking about is simply fascism. There is always a higher good that principle can be sacrificed for, and that’s how the worlds horrors are spawned. We live in a democracy, and part of that is sacrificing security for an open government. We arent talking about military secrets here, we are talking about conduct of government officials that have a real impact on America’s place in the world. Whatever is going on with these issues, they wont remain secret forever, and the American people have a right to know what the adminstration is up to and if there is wrongdoing. Thats our system. I dont want to live in a country where the government controls the media, and thats the bottom line of what you guys are suggesting.
Heres a link to the pictures of the dead detainee. Scroll down to see him.
Oh Christ. Please.
A news organization weighing consequences and then making a principled decision not to report a story of dubious news value it thinks might do more harm than good is hardly “fascism.” It’s editorial discretion. The government isn’t preventing Newsweek from reporting anything. The First Amendment is in no danger—except from people like John McCain and Russ Feingold and John Sensenbrenner. Seriously. Listen to yourself, Mark. Are you really suggesting that merely by dint of our questioning the motives and judgment of Newsweek we are somehow chilling speech? Because if so, your irony meter is clearly malfunctioning.
Let’s watch the hyperbole, shall we?
A news organization weighing consequences and then making a principled decision not to report a story of dubious news value it thinks might do more harm than good is hardly “fascism.â€Â
Gee, I wonder what would happen if O’Reilly, Rush, or Matt Drudge applied that standard to what they reported.
“Are you really suggesting that merely by dint of our questioning the motives and judgment of Newsweek we are somehow chilling speech”
No, im not suggesting that. I want to know what exactly the mechanism is for silencing the news outlets. If its simply editorial discretion, fine, thats a legitimate decision that the market will address. But im hearing a lot more radical suggestions than that. If Newsweek decides not to run a story, fine, but realistically somebody else will. Maybe just some blog, the next Drugereport. What happens then? I want to hear the logical conclusion of this argument. If national security trumps all, is anyone arguing Newsweek et al should be silenced?
freder, it would be nice if you could provide something to back your claims. just googling a bit i came up with quite a few stories about convictions and charges being made related to deaths a abu ghraib and other incedents in iraq and afghanistan. why they aren’t more widely reported i don’t know.
Mark, who would you trust your fate to, the United States or to an Islamic Republic?
It would not be free speech to tell a bunch of rabid whities your home address and say go get him. The responsible parties in the instances you make reference to are investigated and, when appropriate being punished. I concur that we should have abided more scrupulously with the Geneva Convention. Out of uniform? Shoot as a spy.
Gee, I wonder what would happen if O’Reilly, Rush, or Matt Drudge applied that standard to what they reported.
I don’t get it. What would happen?
Clearly you’re new to this site if you think I’m an acolyte of fucking O’Reilly (a faux-populist egomaniac) or somebody who spews GOP talking points.
But that’s hardly surprising. Why bother investigating the positions of the host of the site when you can just assume you know them?
Walter I think your mixing me up with someone else. Personally I have no problem with holding enemy terrorists as the unlawful combatants they are. We could shoot them and in any other period of time the world would have been astonished that we havent, not that we dont give them cable tv and workout rooms. What I have a big problem with is covering things up if that has happened. What I have a huge problem with is the notion that these things should be covered up, willingly by the media, and if they arent willing they should be forced. Maybe im putting the cart before the horse a bit, but in the real world we know these things will be reported by someone somewhere unless they are forcibly shut up. Thats what i am adamently and wholly against. If we are doing nasty things, let them be reported and let the American people decide. Take what you want and pay for it.
Whether or not you are “an an acolyte of fucking O’Reilly (a faux-populist egomaniac) or somebody who spews GOP talking points” or not you are defending the right wing blogosphere and the so-called new media in this posting, which is what I am responding to. And when you write in your posting that:
ut doing so in such a way that our own rhetoric begins to show trappings of the same shabby ploys so frequently relied upon by liberal advocates in the media to further their own pre-conceived narratives, is the real recipe for disasterâ€â€in that it is certain to undercut the progress made by the alternative media in its fight to level the informational playing field.
Like it or not you are defending O’Reilly, Rush and Drudge and all the lies, half-truths and obfuscations they spread.
The Newsweek story is a perfect example. The “party” line is now that Newsweek published, people read the stories, riots started, people died, therefore Newsweek is responsible. Never mind that General Meyer said that the Newsweek story wasn’t the cause of the the riot. Or that yesterday Hamad Karzai, in his joint press conference with the President, said that the Newsweek story had absolutely nothing to do with the riots, that they were entirely about internal Afghani politics. But such statements get in the way of bashing the “liberal” media.
Yup, you got me, pal. By criticizing rightwing screeds that rely on the same kinds of narrative manipulation and rhetorical dodges as those worthy of criticism coming from the left, I am somehow defending Bill O’Reilly, et al.
Brilliant piece of reasoning.
Listen, if you’re simply here to practice your boilerplate,” you’re in the wrong place.
”…covering it up…”? You gotta be joking. In almost every case of misconduct, the investigation was well under way before the first publication. Reading something out of the Orders of the Day and deciding it would make a good story is not the same as digging out closely held secrets. You might be justified going public in the event you uncover an attempt to cover up crimes, but even then the manner of uncovering should consider possible damage to our country. At Mai Lai, if two ranks up and two ranks down had been court marshalled and shot it would have been better for discipline and for the country. I volunteered to re-enlist for one day to shoot Calley if the Army lacked the balls to do it [they did]. No Mai Lai’s here.
By criticizing rightwing screeds that rely on the same kinds of narrative manipulation and rhetorical dodges as those worthy of criticism coming from the left, I am somehow defending Bill O’Reilly, et al.
Yeah, you are really a defender of accurate reporting, as you continue to flog the “Robert Byrd used to be in the Klan” meme. Give it a rest. The man has called it the worst mistake of his life. And you are defending the right wing media, worrying that your “own rhetoric begins to show trappings of the same shabby ploys” of the MSM. You don’t need anyone to show you the shabby trappings, the MSM are pikers compared to Fox and the rest of the rightwing noise machine. Terri Schaivo proved that.
Ah, if only you could read AND comprehend. I wrote—in this very post under which you continue responding to me as if I’m your very own personal straw man, in fact!—that facts are facts, and that rightwingers shouldn’t be going after the partisan motives of those reporters who have the facts correct, because in so doing they show themselves to be no better than those they frequently criticize. So actually, I am CRITICIZING some in the right wing media. Asking them to perform more honestly and to not emulate what they rightly criticize in the left is not a “defense”; it is a recommendation. And again—had you bothered to learn even the slightest bit about your host before you decided to keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the ignorance hole, you’d realize that I was involved in a rather big dustup with social conservatives over my position on the Terri Schiavo affair.
Really, use the search button and do a little research before you pick your let loose your pre-fab anti-conservative assumptions. Or else find a site that parrots Hannity talking points. But this ain’t it.
As for Byrd: sure, he’s called his Kleagle days the worst mistake of his life. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or that I am therefore compelled to believe his repudiation. I don’t know anything about you but I’m willing to bet you’d be pretty quick to label Rush Limbaugh a dope head.
Or wait, that’s Howard Dean who does that. Maybe he should get himself a blog…
Walter,
I’m just following some of your comments:
“Mark, like it or not you are either for us or against us.â€Â
This is not true. While the biblical undertones make great speech writing, the nationalistic attitude eliminates debate and creates a false, right or wrong situation. Who exactly is the us anyway? Do we give unlimited trust in the our government? Our police? Our military? Americans never have done that and shouldn’t start now. I find irony in the fact that during the Revolutionary War (where we were the terrorists) we were never this simplistic. Looking through Google, I see some put it much better than I ever could.
I would imagine you take the George Bernard Shaw approach: Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
Personally, I think more along the lines of Einstein: Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
But that probably makes me liberal, which I’m not. But if opposing nationalistic group-think organizations makes me liberal, then I guess I am. Slag away.
Then you said: “When you harm the United States, whatever your excuse, you harm me.â€Â
While that sounds nice, it’s simply not true. You may be personally offended, but you are not harmed. Your grandson hasn’t been harmed and it’s difficult to measure who else hasn’t been harmed. Even if you take the Newsweek article as damaging the US, what harm has come to you? None, nada, not a thing.
“[W]ho would you trust your fate to, the United States or to an Islamic Republic?â€Â
I’m guessing you’re not Muslim, which is a growing group in a city near you.
“It would not be free speech to tell a bunch of rabid whities your home address and say go get him.â€Â
Excellent point and quite true. Some journalists in Rwanda did just what you’re saying and were found guilty of fueling genocide. They were sentenced to prison for life. Of course, that was through the UN International War Crimes Tribunal, which the US doesn’t belong to—so at least our media is safe.
Exposing injustices, crimes (abuse of prisoners, prosecution of soldiers, killing civilians accidentally or on purpose) is news and newsworthy—placing the subjective “good news†or “bad news†stamp on it is really up to you and your local spin machine. The media could do stories on all of the great things happening in Iraq and Afghanistan—and some media are doing just that. Did you see any of the election coverage in January?
Your point: “I concur that we should have abided more scrupulously with the Geneva Convention. Out of uniform? Shoot as a spy.â€Â
I couldn’t find where it says you can shoot spies under the Geneva Convention. Spies are actually judged by their work, not their clothing. Furthermore, the US can shoot most people it wants to because it skirts the GC by saying that Afghanistan and Iraq have no standing Army—that means no one has a uniform, and, well, you get your wish of genocide.
They’re not prisoners of war, the “bad guys†are “enemy combatants.†Nothing like twisting the rules to fit what you want or need. Plus, we outsource most of our torturing, so we’re not “violating†anything, other than human decency.
If we might interrupt the invective-throwing:
1) The issues are simple: accuracy and balance.
2) Objective truth exists.
3) Editorial decision-making allows 100% accuracy and 100% bias simultaneously.
When the media portrays everything the military does as either “quagmire”, “incompetance”, or “atrocity” then we on the non-left get rather upset.
When the media chooses to hide the images of 9/11 and of people jumping off of the WTC and the beheading videos so as to not-enflame US Public opinion but enthusiastically show every US flaw and imperfection … then we on the non-left claim ‘bias’.
Here is my solution: show the truth. All sides.
Show the Abu Gharib screwup and that the US military had already put the miscreants on trial. 5 seconds later re-show the Nick Berk beheading video and point out that aQ considers the beheaders as heroes.
Say that the US/Coalition has had 1700 dead and X,000(#?) wounded with X,000(#?) civilians casualties who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then point out that we have killed X,000+(#?) aQ/Baathists/Saudis/Syrians/Iranians and captured X,000 who are being held out of the fighting until WW4 is over. Also point out that 50,000,000 people are free and voting and that the USA is the only country in the history of the world to fight so that others may be free.
Point out our screwups and mistakes … IN CONTEXT of the larger picture. Without CONTEXT … without scene-setting, bringing up Abu Gharib is just inflammatory to those who oppose the US military, whether because they are leftie/peaceniks or because they are aQ terrorist/Islamists.
I don’t want censorship, I WANT MORE OF THE TRUTH.
I want it broadly known that we treat aQ terrorists better than they treat captured Aid-Workers, much less captured soldiers.
I want it broadly known that when we screw up, we prosecute, not celebrate. When we bomb an asprin factory run by Saddam and Usama in Sudan that we don’t cheer in the streets and pass out sweets in celebration.
I want it known that while the US Govt and people condemn interrogation-by-koran-flushing, Saudi Arabia AS POLICY siezes and destroys bibles, arrests non-muslims, and has ZERO religious freedom.
I want the people broadcasting US and civilian casualties to show the difference in the monthly death-rate before GW1, GW1-GW2, and after GW2.
I want people to contrast the efforts to save that girl who was heli-med-evaced (but died) vs the treatment of the survivor got when his helicopter was shot down who was forced to stand with a broken/fractured-leg then executed.
I believe in tightly-pairing information when that is possible. Show our screwups … and aQ’s normal activity … preferably split-screen.
Sometimes it is just not possible: 9/11, Beslan, Tianamen-Square, Uzbekistan … all unbalancable. To attack the WTC because of Beirut in the 1980s and Andalusia in the 1400s is as idiotic as attacking a school and slaughtering children for any reason.
Frankly, the media and the muslim world have a failure-of-perspective: ancient history vs nowadays, jewish-conspiracy vs dictatorial oppression, humiliation vs beheadings. The mulslims have a reason at least … they consider us to be subhuman as infidels and some (jews) as seriously subhuman. They are screaming as if we have already started producing Koran-toilet-paper.
Then again, the media is pretty far left and the left broadly considers capitalism and the right to be literally evil.
Walter,
>
> I’m just following some of your comments:
>
> “Mark, like it or not you are either for us or against us.†I am confident that, had you been in the WTC on 9/11 your neutrality would gave been scrupulously respected.> This is not true. While the biblical undertones make great speech writing,
> the nationalistic attitude eliminates debate and creates a false, right or
> wrong situation. Who exactly is the us anyway? Do we give unlimited trust in
> the our government? Our police? Our military? Americans never have done that
> and shouldn’t start now. I find irony in the fact that during the
> Revolutionary War (where we were the terrorists) we were never this
> simplistic. Looking through Google, I see some put it much better than I
> ever could.
I do not recall any instances during the revolutionary war where we attacked anyone other than British or Hessian troops.
Ask Islam who “us” is. They have no problem discerning us.> I would imagine you take the George Bernard Shaw approach: Patriotism is
> your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because
> you were born in it. I take the pragmatic approach – If my country is destroyed I will be, too. Shaw was a socialist, hardly someone I admire.> Personally, I think more along the lines of Einstein: Nationalism is an
> infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. Einstein – If nationalism means nothing why did he leave his birthplace? I guess sometimes survival has a value even to a genius.
> But that probably makes me liberal, which I’m not. But if opposing
> nationalistic group-think organizations makes me liberal, then I guess I am.
> Slag away.
>
> Then you said: “When you harm the United States, whatever your excuse, you
> harm me.â€Â
> While that sounds nice, it’s simply not true. You may be personally
> offended, but you are not harmed. The money that must go to fight the people who want to kill us would be better spent elsewhere except for the danger to us. Remember 9/11? The post-9/11 restrictions hurt. Your grandson hasn’t been harmed <i>fighting house to house in Fallujah was not a walk in the park, and he will be going to Afghanistan this winter. He will be less safe there because of assholes like you and Newsqueek.</i> and
> it’s difficult to measure who else hasn’t been harmed. Even if you take
> the Newsweek article as damaging the US, what harm has come to you? None,
> nada, not a thing. In 1947 I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the United States. I have never asked to be relieved of that obligation. I am capable of observing when actions outside my front door affect me adversely. You may not give a shit for your neighbors, yet I still care about even you.>
> “[W]ho would you trust your fate to, the United States or to an Islamic
> Republic?â€Â
> I’m guessing you’re not Muslim, which is a growing group in a city near
> you. Answer the question. And no, no local Islamics – they prefer Frisco.>
> “It would not be free speech to tell a bunch of rabid whities your home
> address and say go get him.â€Â
> Excellent point and quite true. Some journalists in Rwanda did just what
> you’re saying and were found guilty of fueling genocide. They were
> sentenced to prison for life. Of course, that was through the UN
> International War Crimes Tribunal, which the US doesn’t belong to—so at
> least our media is safe. International justice is an oxymoron. The United States tries and punishes her own. An Italian court is going to try an author for insulting Islam. Are you ready for such “International” justice?> Exposing injustices, crimes (abuse of prisoners, prosecution of soldiers,
> killing civilians accidentally or on purpose) is news and newsworthy—
> placing the subjective “good news†or “bad news†stamp on it is
> really up to you and your local spin machine. The media could do stories on
> all of the great things happening in Iraq and Afghanistan—and some media
> are doing just that. Did you see any of the election coverage in January?
>
>
> Your point: “I concur that we should have abided more scrupulously with
> the Geneva Convention. Out of uniform? Shoot as a spy.â€Â
> I couldn’t find where it says you can shoot spies under the Geneva
> Convention. Spies are actually judged by their work, not their clothing.
> Furthermore, the US can shoot most people it wants to because it skirts the
> GC by saying that Afghanistan and Iraq have no standing Army—that means
> no one has a uniform, and, well, you get your wish of genocide. Both Afghanistan and Iraq had standing armies that were defeated in combat by us, and whose troops were given the full protection of the Geneva Convention even though they did not grant the same protection to our troops.> They’re not prisoners of war, the “bad guys†are “enemy
> combatants.†Nothing like twisting the rules to fit what you want or need.
> Plus, we outsource most of our torturing, so we’re not “violatingâ€Â
> anything, other than human decency.
Your knowledge of the Geneva Convention is right up there with your knowledge of everything else. Soldiers wear a distinctive uniform or symbol to represent their allegiance to an authority that takes responsibility for their control. Bandits have no rights under the Geneva Convention. You have my deepest sympathy. It must be acutely painful to be as remote from reality as you are.>
>
> WEW>