Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had a few loaded words for the media during a Johns Hopkins University speech last week. Portraying Iraq as a failure “is not the accurate picture, and further it’s not good journalism.” As journalists report on U.S. casualties, he said, they should also report “what they died for, or more accurately, what they lived for.” I’d counter that most media outlets strive to do the latter, especially in the hometowns of the fallen. But the rough daily reality of Iraq makes explaining what they died for the more urgent and difficult question.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/7
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
14 Comments
The national and world media adhere to the age old philosophy, “If it bleeds, it leads”In their favor, however, One dead Marine is infinitely more important than a hundred new Iraq schools, businesses or oil wells.
Exactly right Codie
Why do you think our local media reports only car accidents, house fires, robberies, stabbings, and murders. It gives you the impression that all hell as broken loose in Wichita.
Is it an acurate picture of what is really going on or just focusing on the negative? Everybody knows the answer, but unfortunantly, if it benefits them politically, they will use negative aspects and beat it to death to drive a distorted view as to gain politically.
Codie, you are such an ignorant putz, I feel stupider just for having read you.
One dead American Marine is more valuable to me than a thousand thousand Iraqi schools and hospitals.
I agree with Dick Cheney when he said, “the capture of Saddam Hussein is not worth one American life.”
Unfortunately, Cheney said that some ten years ago when he was trying to justify not invading Baghdad the first time. Now he has inexplicably changed his position and believes that capturing Saddam was worth 2,100 American lives and 250 billion dollars . . . and counting . . .
For Rumsfeld to lecture the media reminds me of what I used to call the Soviet defense: accuse your enemies of what you yourself are doing before they get a chance to accuse you of it.
For instance, when they invaded Afghanistan, they said they were doing it to “stop imperialism.”
You Bush apologists who claim Team Bush never knowingly lies? Well, here’s a blatant one–Rumsfeld said on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Thurs. Dec. 8th–
“I mean, I was very careful. I never predicted any number of deaths or the cost or the length because I’ve looked at a lot of wars, and anyone who tries to do that is going to find themselves wrong, flat wrong.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec05/rumsfeld_12-08.html
But before the war started he said plainly that the war could take “six days, six weeks, I doubt six months.”
Six months . . . and we’re now going on three years.
Or try this one on for size–JIM LEHRER: But my — it’s not my point but some people, if you expected 100 people to die and 2,100 died, no matter what the reason was, that — doesn’t that cause you –DONALD RUMSFELD: I said that. It could.JIM LEHRER: Exactly.DONALD RUMSFELD: I don’t know anybody who had any reasonable expectations about the number or the length of the war or the cost of the war. I just don’t — no one I know went out and said these are how those three metrics ought to be considered. And you can take it to the bank
*****
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a Senate hearing last March : “When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community.”
“There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people,” said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz at a House of Representatives appropriations hearing the same day.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040701-024236-4063r.htm
*****
It’s one thing to get lied to day in and day out about the war. But it’s something else again to willfully BELIEVE the lies and support the liars.
Poor GalahadStill telling the same old lies. One of the first stupid Lies you bring up ” I doubt six months” proves your ignorance of English. He doubted six months and it was more. Poor guess but not a lie. Try a Arab to English dictionary.
Also, if you should Google up a dictionary try the word ‘infinitely’. Much more than a thousand according to Webster.
The first rule when you’re getting your behind handed to you is to blame the media. But it didn’t work for Nixon (remember the nattering nabobs–what ever happened to Agnew, but then again, who cares?) and it won’t work for the Bushie neocon cult of death.
Codie, did you even read the articles before calling them lie?
Sum1
He’s just a stupid little kid. Don’t let him get to ya.
Codie–
Yeah, you’re right . . . when Rumsfilled says six months at the most and that turns into 30 months and counting, it’s not technically a lie.
Oh wait, yes it is.
I would pity you except it’s people like you that are getting our boys killed.
I was just talking about Galahads personal lies. I would never go to links offered in this blog. I don’t need any more junk mail and viruses.If you can’t state your opinion coherently don’t expect a bunch of terrorist sites to improve your credibility.
Codie thinks that The Washington Times is a “terrorist” site.
See, that’s just sad, when a froth-at-the-mouth right winger doesn’t even know that The WashTimes is the right wing alternative to The Post.
Codie . . . a Tim McVey wanna-be.
Also, Cootie, when you’re QUOTING A GOV’T OFFICIAL VERBATIM, it doesn’t matter what the source is–the source is the gov’t official’s words themselves.
Duh.
But arguing about “sources” means you can avoid looking at what our fearless actually said and say . . .
Dumbass.
But who believes anything you lying traitors say. When you quote anybody I naturally assume it is either out of context or totally made up. I am slightly interested in your opinions but not obvious misquotes.
So you’re saying that Rumsfeld DIDN’T say what he said.
I wondered how you Nazis justify what BushCo says with what it does, and now I see how you do it.
You just willfully IGNORE what BushCo does and says.
Seig Heil.